A Debate

[Patrick Degan]

Those are the rules of canonicity for this group. However, those statements do not reflect the actual Star Wars canon policy. For more information, go here:

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWCanon.html

How convenient —the information from your own page and no other source as reference. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it by a longshot.

Specifically, you'll want to click the "Star Wars Canon" link, but the rest might also be helpful to you.

Riiiiight —don't trust LucasFilm's word about what's what. Don't trust 20th Century Fox. Don't take Paramount's word on what counts for what in Star Trek. Just trust your own page.

I hate to have to tell you this, but canonicity isn't decided by what one fan thinks it is, it's decided by what the studios say it is.

[DarkStar]

How convenient —the information from your own page and no other source as reference. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it by a longshot.

Are you smoking crack?

Specifically, you'll want to click the "Star Wars Canon" link, but the rest might also be helpful to you.

Riiiiight —don't trust LucasFilm's word about what's what. Don't trust 20th Century Fox. Don't take Paramount's word on what counts for what in Star Trek. Just trust your own page.

That's what the big honkin' list of references at the bottom is for.

[Patrick Degan]

Are you smoking crack?

No more than you're practising with that Home Lobotomy Kit™ of yours.

Riiiiight —don't trust LucasFilm's word about what's what. Don't trust 20th Century Fox. Don't take Paramount's word on what counts for what in Star Trek. Just trust your own page.[/quote]

That's what the big honkin' list of references at the bottom is for.[/quote]

OK, a point to you on that one —fair's fair and I was wrong in that instance. Just as long as you don't try to tell us that Official material approved by Lucasfilm (until contradicted by Lucas himself in subsequent movies) counts for nothing whatsoever.

[DarkStar]

Just as long as you don't try to tell us that Official material approved by Lucasfilm (until contradicted by Lucas himself in subsequent movies) counts for nothing whatsoever.

I don't have to . . . Lucas beat me to it.

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar, one of the first things I read when I looked at that particular page was that you said, "To be fair, it is assumed that the Dominion war was [not serious to the Federation]." That is ridiculous. If you watched anything, you will realize that the Dominion frequently threatened to win the war!

[Coyote]

DarkStar...

Hold on a minnit. The reason that this particular board has its own canon list is simply so that debates and comparisons can be kept within established parameters. That is why Stardestroyer.net's policy excludes the games even though the PC games are LucasArt creations, while the EU universe as we read in the books is included.

But for example, most of the West End Games info is discarded because it is recognized by nearly everyone in the SW fan base as being rife with errors and inconsistencies. The info cannot be trusted, so it is best set aside. Same with the Marvel comics stuff. But some elements of the WEG setting was accepted as canon, namely ertain types of ships that Timothy Zahn referred to in his trilogy (which had Lucas's nod of approval)-- things like the Carrack class light cruiser and the Interdictor cruiser, which we've never seen in any movie.

Personally, I'd like to see the Kyle Katarn games accepted as canon here but I realize that I have my best hopes of seeing that happen if I address the idea in a rational way, rather than to be overly confrontational...

[DarkStar]

DarkStar, one of the first things I read when I looked at that particular page was that you said, "To be fair, it is assumed that the Dominion war was [not serious to the Federation]." That is ridiculous. If you watched anything, you will realize that the Dominion frequently threatened to win the war!

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWCanon.html

What that means, nitwit, is that I'm not going to tie anyone's hands behind their backs, and use their current situation as a crutch to allow one power to stomp another.

Also, whereas the Dominion merely "threatened" to win, the Rebellion did, so what's your point?

[His Divine Shadow]

Hold on a minnit. The reason that this particular board has its own canon list is simply so that debates and comparisons can be kept within established parameters. That is why Stardestroyer.net's policy excludes the games even though the PC games are LucasArt creations, while the EU universe as we read in the books is included.

Strange, I thought games where recognized here?
They should be, ofcourse nothing game specific though, just the general story of the games are recognized.

But for example, most of the West End Games info is discarded because it is recognized by nearly everyone in the SW fan base as being rife with errors and inconsistencies.

That may be so, but it still has information thats not so bad either.
It should be, and I hope it is, recognized.

If not thats personal opinion over Lucasfilms policy.

[DarkStar]

DarkStar...

Hold on a minnit. The reason that this particular board has its own canon list is simply so that debates and comparisons can be kept within established parameters.

I think it is perfectly reasonable if one wants to set up their own rules and have people debate within them. The problem, however, is when those rules are claimed as coming from other sources (i.e. Lucas and friends), when in fact those sources do not agree.

As analogy, take the 66 books of the (Protestant) Bible. That's the canon . . . other books of that era are considered apocryphal. If the members/owners of a discussion board or related website decided, on their own, to include the Apocrypha in its list of accepted works of Christian doctrine, that would be fine. But, if they instead said that God or the Council of Nicea had declared the Apocrypha "quasi-canon" or simply "useful in the absence of canon data", anyone would have the right to say "uh, 'scuse me, but WTF?"

That's what I said.

[Master of Ossus]

The point, dumbass, is that the Rebellion won because it killed the Emperor. It was not because they had enough resources to confront the Empire. The Federation won because it managed to outfight its enemies with comparable resources. The Dominion War was clearly a "Grand Source of Worry" for the Federation. To say otherwise is silly.

[SirNitram]

See, Dark Star, you really are an idiot. First, you actually beleive one quote from Lucas overrules all other quotes he and other top members of Lucasfilm have made on the subject. Worse than that, you must use a very specific interpretation of the quote to get it to work your way(A reasonable person would see it's obviously not talking about canon policy, but then again, this is you.). I also like how when I posted my own evidence on this, you attacked a quip I made at the end, and never touched the two examples. That, as they say, is a concession of defeat.

Of course, if you were a reasonable and logical debator, you'd accept the canon rules for here no matter what, and debate accordingly. But you don't. So, you once again prove to be little more than a Timothy Jones clone, trying for a thin veneer of civility over ridiculous arguments, stupid retreads, and trying to alter the rules of the debate in your favour.

[DarkStar]

The Dominion War was clearly a "Grand Source of Worry" for the Federation. To say otherwise is silly.

You might want to stop bitching, since it also means that the Klingon and Romulan Empires aren't currently allied with the Federation in my scenario.

Whatever the case, the point, O Grand Poo-bah of Dipshitness, is that no one's hands are tied . . . I am not making a claim about the canon representation of the war. Of course, it doesn't particularly matter anyway, since:

A. The war is over
B. I have written virtually nothing of a tactical nature, and nothing of a strategic nature.

So, I would suggest you stop showing your stupidity.

[DarkStar]

See, Dark Star, you really are an idiot. First, you actually beleive one quote from Lucas overrules all other quotes he and other top members of Lucasfilm have made on the subject.

No, I don't, because the quotes are not in disagreement.

I also like how when I posted my own evidence on this, you attacked a quip I made at the end, and never touched the two examples.

Really? Where? I have a lot of stupidity to deal with . . . it's possible I might have missed some yours.

Of course, if you were a reasonable and logical debator, you'd accept the canon rules for here no matter what, and debate accordingly.

Illogical. You have been given the reasons why.

[SirNitram]

See, Dark Star, you really are an idiot. First, you actually beleive one quote from Lucas overrules all other quotes he and other top members of Lucasfilm have made on the subject.

No, I don't, because the quotes are not in disagreement.

I also like how when I posted my own evidence on this, you attacked a quip I made at the end, and never touched the two examples.

Really? Where? I have a lot of stupidity to deal with . . . it's possible I might have missed some yours.

Of course, if you were a reasonable and logical debator, you'd accept the canon rules for here no matter what, and debate accordingly.

Illogical. You have been given the reasons why.

Of course they are. They clearly state the EU and all books NOT holding the Infinities emblem are Official and admissable if they don't contradict the movies. Your quote, however, does not make any mention to canon policy.. The two I posted deal directly with it. You, however, ignore all the quotes that are stated to be about canon policy, because you can't twist them.

Very witty. You replied to the post I made with them, yet snipped the cut and paste quote and the link. Go back and read, I know you have enough education, even if it is American, to be able to read.

No, not illogical. You yourself said this:

I think it is perfectly reasonable if one wants to set up their own rules and have people debate within them. The problem, however, is when those rules are claimed as coming from other sources (i.e. Lucas and friends), when in fact those sources do not agree.

There, you say it is perfectly reasonable. Now you change it and say it's illogical. You truly live up to your entry in the (In)Famous Trolsl and Idiots page, Robert. You have no internal consistancy except for being blindingly stupid.

[Cromag]

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: <Snip quote>

It is for the very reason that the quote makes no relation between the canon and the EU that I believe it is useless for the debate regarding the EU's place in the SWU. Given we agree on this point, it should also be apparent that it is not a good quote to use for your definition of "Continuity", which does make reference to the EU's relation to the SWU.

<Snipped discussion of Infinities, it will be addressed below>

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.

Rostoni's quote by itself outlines what is considered Canon as far as the books, which she has some creative control over. The Infinities logo identifies that the story you are about to read could not possibly take place in the EU because of the inherent conflicts (eg. Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul).

I used Cerasi's analogy to show how her "Canon" material can fit into the universe that is the "absolute canon" described by the films. They are windows into that universe.

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.

Information from the EU can never be as good as the canon of the films because it is only "canon until contradicted". Every piece of info we glean has that condition. Granted that with a total of only 6 films, there will be large amounts of material that the films will seem to be "silent" on, but that is not the fault of the EU, it is the limitation of there being only one man from whom the canon films flow.

Again, we don't have anything to support a seperate universe for the EU that GL has specifically said doesn't exist in the SWU.

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)

Yes, the absolute canon of the films comprise the universe that is SW. If you want make yet another distinction, you now have "absolute canon" which is the films and then you have "Canon" which is comprised of those stories in the EU that do not carry the Infinities logo.

See? Now we have valid evidence for there being yet another classification of SW material, from an authority you trust, that can reconcile the seeming conflict between Rostoni's "Canon" and the "absolute canon" of the films.

Really, I think it's not necessary as the term "official" works just fine to describe those works which are below the canon films in terms of authority.

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.

I think this is a case of taking an analogy beyond the point at which it breaks down. I do believe that all Cerasi was going for was that there are varying degrees of clarity (ie. truth) to each window that is an EU story, but that they are nevertheless part of the SWU.

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.

Well, if we're going to be objective, we'd put aside our personal feelings about the idea of Luke relieving himself and look back at the hangar scene and see if there is any evidence of his "nuggets".

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.

Rostoni again makes no attempt to compare the EU to the SWU other than to say she's mindful of maintaining GL's vision for where the stories should go. Perhaps this quote too should be eliminated as evidence for either side?

For the record, I have yet to see the difference between an article of speech (ie. "a" vs. "the") settle a debate in absence of more definite terms. I believe we should concentrate on whether or not GL's Cinescape quote confirms the EU is not a part of the canon films' universe.

Am I correct in assuming that the discontinuities and disunities you speak of are those we see between the films and the EU, and not between the films themselves? If so, then you are not bringing to light any new information. His decision not to worry about contradicting stories from the EU is the very reason we see conflicts between the novels and the films. This doesn't amount to excluding the EU from the universe of the films, it's chiefly a reasonable concession on the part of contributing authors to the creator of Star Wars.

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).

This is not something I have proposed, nor would I support that view. Infinities is removed from consideration because the stories are occurring outside of any continuity, be it the dictionary definition or yours.

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.

Or, as I suggested above, we could look at it as Rostoni's "Canon" (defined as the books w/o Infinities logo) which is subject to the authority of Cerasi's "absolute canon" (which is defined as the films). This may be better than official vs. canon in terms of the clarity given by the definitions, but I'd argue that it's understood that "Canon" = official, and "absolute canon" = canon and is thus better because it's shorter.

"Canon" material is described as windows into the universe that is the "absolute canon", but as you say, they have varying degrees of fogginess and Infinities is essentially opaque. Anyone taking the EU stories at wholesale is making a mistake, everyone should understand that the EU is only "canon until contradicted" a status inferior to that of the films.

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".

"Official" is derived from Cerasi's quote wherein he referred to the vast body of published works as windows into the universe of the films. It is simply easier to use "official" to denote those materials, otherwise we'd have to detail exactly what is inferior to the authority of the films each time we discussed the evidence. Clearly, this is a very solid basis for the term, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in that quote.

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.

This is the very type of argument you decried in your section regarding "Canonicity Whiplash" wherein the absence of the Infinities material is used as positive proof for the EU being a part of the SWU. The absence of an Infinities logo on my Monopoly game is not positive proof that it is considered part of the storyline that is the EU.

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.

An unfortunate necessity, as GL's quote divides one world into three components (books, games, and comic books). You could say these are all part of one world, but it is more accurate to describe them as worlds within a world, a universe.

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.

It's "all-or-nothing" only if we accept your interpretation as fact. The EU can arguably be said to be comprised of the books, games, and comic books, but that doesn't prove that GL considers the EU storyline to be taking place in a parallel universe totally apart from what we see in the films. You're assigning additional meaning to something that actually has nothing to say on the issue you're arguing for.

All the Cinescape quote is meant to say is that there will be no Ep 7, 8, or 9 and that LL, which GL has limited involvement with, is the only place we can look to for SW material once Ep 3 is released.

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.

I believe it is the effect of the rule which is important. It is a certainty that should an author, invited to write a story for the EU, try to submit their own "Ep 3", they will not get their work approved. This rule, however it came to be, does not preclude all EU material from being part of the SWU, it merely prevents authors from trying to tell the SW stories that GL is working on.

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.

Insofar as they currently produce and will be the only ones to continue producing SW material once Ep 3 is done, yes. However, it's very clear that he is not addressing the specific issue of where the EU storyline fits into the SWU seen in the films. His comment about "intruding" is to say that stories exist that occur in between the movies.

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?

Yes, funky isn't it? It was approaching 2 am when I wrote this, and I somehow got it into my head that you were arguing GL believes that the stories of the EU were a literal parallel universe, seperate from the other world of his creation, the stories we see in the film. Thus, in order for him to be "involved" in the parallel universe, he would actually have to appear as a character in one/some of the stories.

Exhaustion is sometimes more potent for me than alcohol.

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.

I hope it doesn't make sense to you, otherwise you're admitting that a walking, talking, master print of Ep 4 handing down mandates to KJA about how to portray the Sith is feasible.

What I should have been saying is that the Cinescape quote is only about which entity is going to continue producing SW material after Ep 3 is released, namely, LL, and that there absolutely will not be any Ep 7, 8, or 9. It has nothing to do with how the EU storyline fits into the SWU.

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."

It merely demonstrates that GL does work with LL in some limited capacity to determine what they produce. It fits in with my interpretation of the Cinescape quote that GL is talking about entities responsible for producing SW material, rather than how the EU storyline is in a seperate universe from the one we see in the films.

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

No, I was merely saying (at close to 2 am) that it made more sense to me that GL was corresponding with LL on guidelines regarding the background for the Sith, than a sentient copy of Ep 4 smacking KJA and screaming "The Sith are aliens dominated by Dark Jedi!"

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.

I'll try to avoid future impasses by getting proper rest before posting. All I'm really arguing for is that the Cinescape quote doesn't have anything to do specifically with the EU being a seperate universe from the one we see in the films. It has everything to do with 1) who will continue to produce SW material after Ep 3, and 2) there will be no third trilogy.

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.

To bring more Cerasi in, the galaxy (or universe) was created by the absolute canon films. These inspired authors create windows into this universe, with varying degrees of clarity (amount of truth, units expressed in nuggets ), wherein we find additional tales that the films did not tell.

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.

You've apparently already come to the conclusion that he was generally addressing the world of licensing. That should be enough to lead you to the (actual) point I've been trying to make; GL was merely stating who will continue to tell SW stories once Ep 3 is done and there will be no third trilogy.

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.

It appears we agree that Rostoni's first quote is simply a description of her job and makes no attempt to establish a place for the EU in the SWU. Thus I believe it is not a point in favor for either side of this debate and shouldn't be used for future posts.

Rostoni's second quote does add some confusion with her use of the term "Canon" as the books w/o the Infinities logo. It too fails to address the EU's place in the SWU, her only mention of SW is her conviction to not undermine GL's own vision. I submit that this quote is also not a point in favor of either side, but it does merit further discussion on how her "Canon" can fit in with the other quotes on the Canon policy.

The Cerasi quote is definitely worthy, as it addresses where the EU fits into the universe we see in the films.

<Much snipping of quotes> You can find the Cerasi quote here

Again for the sake of brevity, I've snipped quite a few quotes. First, the link to the dictionary definition of continuity. As well, the Troy Denning and Sansweet quotes didn't even make use of the word "continuity", so I didn't find them pertinent. As to the Rostoni quotes, I don't believe the first should be discussed anymore, as I mentioned at the start of this post. Her second quote only merits further discussion for her definition of "Canon", which I already discussed above in terms of how it works in Cerasi's analogy.

As to Cerasi's quote, I believe the main points are covered above where I address how the world of the EU fits into the SWU we see in the films, the EU stories are windows into that universe, thus they are part of it. However, given that it is the best quote to use for your argument, I wouldn't be adverse to cutting out the rest of these quotes which don't appear to address the issue of the EU storyline's place in the SWU.

"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)

The "overall continuity" this person speaks about looks like it could be that of both the SW films and the EU. How does this help your position? It may be helpful to know in what context this quote was offered as well as the identity of the person being quoted.

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.

Certainly, your view of the EU's place in the SWU would give an author every right to be upset. However, GL's method of creating his own stories with complete freedom from any EU material doesn't amount to him explicitly excluding their work from being a part of the SWU. There are many non-character based reasons why GL should ignore the EU when writing his stories:

1) He is the creator of Star Wars, it is a reasonable concession for anyone who adds to the universe that their work could conceivably be contradicted by his stories.

2) If he did have to take the EU into account, it would lengthen the already time consuming process of making the movies.

3) Given that his stories represent a relatively small portion of the SW timeline, the odds that the films could completely contradict any given EU story are pretty small anyway (with the possible exception of the in-between stories).

4) The first three films have been out since 1983 with only minor changes in the SE. Any author foolish enough to write a book these days that is completely contradicted by them doesn't deserve to be pissed off, it's their own damn fault.

[DarkStar]

I think it is perfectly reasonable if one wants to set up their own rules and have people debate within them. The problem, however, is when those rules are claimed as coming from other sources (i.e. Lucas and friends), when in fact those sources do not agree.

There, you say it is perfectly reasonable. Now you change it and say it's illogical. You truly live up to your entry in the (In)Famous Trolsl and Idiots page, Robert. You have no internal consistancy except for being blindingly stupid.

Here's the board-specific rule-set:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=853

"The movies are the only true Star Wars. Nothing else counts.

The movies are true Star Wars, but the books still count as a secondary source, whenever they are not directly contradicted by the movies (and contradictions can be harder to prove than you think; what seems like an irreconcilable contradiction to you might be solved in an eyeblink by somebody else, so don't get cocky). Note that this is Lucasfilms Licensing's official position, and I have personally adopted it for that reason."

Note that the rules are claimed as being the official position of Lucas and company.

[DarkStar]

Welcome back. I'm having to keep my old message up to the side to remember where the hell we were.

It is for the very reason that the quote makes no relation between the canon and the EU that I believe it is useless for the debate regarding the EU's place in the SWU.

I do not find it useless, however, since it is a valid quote about the nature of the EU's c/Continuity. If we wish to discuss all definition-class quotes of this sort, it's in . . . but it is only out if we try to limit ourselves to quote specifically dealing with EU-Canon relations.

Given we agree on this point, it should also be apparent that it is not a good quote to use for your definition of "Continuity", which does make reference to the EU's relation to the SWU.

I find it perfectly allowable as a source quote. The fact that it does not directly speak to the subject of my final argument is, I believe, not relevant to its utility, since it remains on-topic.

Rostoni's quote by itself outlines what is considered Canon as far as the books, which she has some creative control over. The Infinities logo identifies that the story you are about to read could not possibly take place in the EU because of the inherent conflicts (eg. Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul).

If by "canon" you mean "Continuity" or, more diplomatically, "Official EU", I could agree with your definitions. However, her use of the term "canon", being contrary to all other data on that term, might perhaps be better described as "Rostoni-Canon" (to refer to the subjects of her quote).

I used Cerasi's analogy to show how her "Canon" material can fit into the universe that is the "absolute canon" described by the films. They are windows into that universe.

But, I disagreed with that interpretation, and explained why.

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.

Information from the EU can never be as good as the canon of the films because it is only "canon until contradicted".

Canon, until contradicted by the Canon . . . which means it "is as good as Canon, when the Canon is silent", according to the standard view.

Again, we don't have anything to support a seperate universe for the EU that GL has specifically said doesn't exist in the SWU.

Except for the implicit separation from multiple sources, and the final explicit separation of the Lucas Cinescape quote.

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)

Yes, the absolute canon of the films comprise the universe that is SW. If you want make yet another distinction, you now have "absolute canon" which is the films and then you have "Canon" which is comprised of those stories in the EU that do not carry the Infinities logo.

Yes, Cerasi refers to the Absolute Canon. However, we already know from Insider #23 that the remainder of Canon (i.e. that which is not Absolute Canon (the movies)) is composed of the scripts, novelisations, and NPR radio dramas. The Rostoni-Canon is contradictory to this.

On a lighter note, I'm trying to figure out what the advertisement would look like. ( "Absolut Canon" )

Really, I think it's not necessary as the term "official" works just fine to describe those works which are below the canon films in terms of authority.

The Canon Policy comfortably describes the following as the Canon:

Movies - Absolute Canon
Scripts - Canon
Novels - Canon
NPR-RD - Canon

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.

I think this is a case of taking an analogy beyond the point at which it breaks down.

No analogy is perfect (if it was, it wouldn't be an analogy). What we can say with certainty is that, no matter which way you go with his analogy, unidentified and unidentifiable portions of the EU are simply false, from the view of the actual SW Canon universe.

My "taking an analogy beyond the point at which it breaks down" is actually the safest interpretation in regards to the avoidance of error, and gives the Canon its proper respect and highest place, as Cerasi would have us do.

However, I do not think I have warped his analogy.

To make use of another analogy (forgive me), let's take the Biblical canon(s). Early efforts at internal definitions of the 'accepted works' of the Christians were generally split into three groups (as per Eusebius, especially: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodic ... l#eusebius ).

1. Accepted - what everyone considered to be okay.
2. Disputed - what some considered to be okay, others rejected, or there was uncertainty
3. Rejected - what most everyone considered to be crap.

If we applied the same sort of "nugget of truth" or "window" analogy to the middle category as we do with the EU, we would most likely end up where I end up with Cerasi's quote . . . except, in our case, the list of Accepted canon doesn't refer to what was commonly accepted, but what was actually dictated from on high (or at least at Lucas's ranch).

Certain books included in the Vulgate were considered "Disputed" by St. Jerome. The common belief on these books was that they were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for the establishing of doctrine (i.e. official church fact).

Similarly, the Rostoni-Canon is presented as 'a history' . . . perhaps edifying, but historical in nature, by default. Or, to quote Wong (not as a source of policy, but simply as evidence of a corresponding view): "All of the other material represents the expanded "history" of Star Wars, so it has some standing but it must be interpreted as history rather than fact."
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html
(Of course, this is not a view he follows, but that's neither here nor there)

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.

Well, if we're going to be objective, we'd put aside our personal feelings about the idea of Luke relieving himself and look back at the hangar scene and see if there is any evidence of his "nuggets".

Naturally, but there were none there.

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.

Rostoni again makes no attempt to compare the EU to the SWU other than to say she's mindful of maintaining GL's vision for where the stories should go.

It's a tag-along universe.

Perhaps this quote too should be eliminated as evidence for either side?

No, because it also sets up important definitions of the terms.

For the record, I have yet to see the difference between an article of speech (ie. "a" vs. "the") settle a debate in absence of more definite terms.

Nor was settling the debate my intent by pointing that out.

I believe we should concentrate on whether or not GL's Cinescape quote confirms the EU is not a part of the canon films' universe.

Agreed. However, I think we are both at liberty to use as supporting evidence other quotes on the canon or EU, their relationship, and their definition.

Am I correct in assuming that the discontinuities and disunities you speak of are those we see between the films and the EU, and not between the films themselves? If so, then you are not bringing to light any new information. His decision not to worry about contradicting stories from the EU is the very reason we see conflicts between the novels and the films.

Not counting any inadvertent discrepancies that might pop up from time to time, that's true, and it constitutes one of the most devastating arguments against the EU having any canonicity.

This doesn't amount to excluding the EU from the universe of the films, it's chiefly a reasonable concession on the part of contributing authors to the creator of Star Wars.

Depending on one's point of view, it may not, all by itself, constitute sufficient cause to eliminate the EU. However, in concert with the self-referential nature of the EU (which exists whether or not you agree with the
"Canonicity" concept), there is a second line of attack on the EU's perceived canonicity. Mix in the first line of attack in regards to the Canon Policy, and the EU is engaged in a two-front war.

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).

This is not something I have proposed, nor would I support that view. Infinities is removed from consideration because the stories are occurring outside of any continuity, be it the dictionary definition or yours.

Thank you. I think that makes three cool points for you.

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".

"Official" is derived from Cerasi's quote wherein he referred to the vast body of published works as windows into the universe of the films. It is simply easier to use "official" to denote those materials, otherwise we'd have to detail exactly what is inferior to the authority of the films each time we discussed the evidence. Clearly, this is a very solid basis for the term, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in that quote.[/quote]

I think a better term would be, simply, "Expanded Universe", since that is the one Cerasi uses, and it does not require the question to be begged of whether the nuggets of truth one can get out of those windows constitute canon (or even sub-canon) fact in the Canon SW universe.

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.

This is the very type of argument you decried in your section regarding "Canonicity Whiplash" wherein the absence of the Infinities material is used as positive proof for the EU being a part of the SWU.

Actually, no. Games are expressly labelled by Lucas as part of the parallel universe. I suppose you could argue that Cerasi, by not mentioning the Monopoly board game specifically, effectively excised it . . . but, I have the CD-ROM edition of said game, and Cerasi did mention video games (which, I would assume, is inclusive of computer games).

The absence of an Infinities logo on my Monopoly game is not positive proof that it is considered part of the storyline that is the EU.

Eek. Then how do we even know what is proper EU? I know we have the Rostoni-Canon, but it's a little unclear . . . she says "books" at one point, "things" in another.

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.

An unfortunate necessity, as GL's quote divides one world into three components (books, games, and comic books). You could say these are all part of one world, but it is more accurate to describe them as worlds within a world, a universe.

Parsimony aside, we seem to agree that it is all one universe . . . but are you suggesting a separate timeline for each?

Another issue would be semantic in nature . . . Lucas refers to the entire parallel universe as being "another world", suggesting one other as opposed to three.

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.

It's "all-or-nothing" only if we accept your interpretation as fact. The EU can arguably be said to be comprised of the books, games, and comic books, but that doesn't prove that GL considers the EU storyline to be taking place in a parallel universe totally apart from what we see in the films. You're assigning additional meaning to something that actually has nothing to say on the issue you're arguing for.

He must be speaking of the content, and therefore the storyline. The 'intrude on his world' thing cannot refer to the early Eighties when the movies were coming out, for example. Instead, it must instead refer to the period of time in the two universes.

All the Cinescape quote is meant to say is that there will be no Ep 7, 8, or 9 and that LL, which GL has limited involvement with, is the only place we can look to for SW material once Ep 3 is released.

That may be all he was asked, assuming the intro text reflects the question, but his quote clearly deals with more sweeping issues.

Exhaustion is sometimes more potent for me than alcohol.

I rather enjoy the hysterical twilight haze of the world when I have been conscious in it for way too long, myself. No worries.

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."

It merely demonstrates that GL does work with LL in some limited capacity to determine what they produce.

But, since asking Lucas a question does not equal Lucas giving orders about what should and should not be, I don't think this serves as a useful example.

Again, we've reached a bit of an impasse.

I'll try to avoid future impasses by getting proper rest before posting. [/quote]

You really had me worried there for a few minutes, though, about whether my brain had gotten proper rest.

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.

To bring more Cerasi in, the galaxy (or universe) was created by the absolute canon films. These inspired authors create windows into this universe, with varying degrees of clarity (amount of truth, units expressed in nuggets ), wherein we find additional tales that the films did not tell.

But, given that that the Absolute Canon is the real story of Star Wars (and therefore must contain (to use an arbitrary figure representing the total amount of Absolute Canon truth) 1 MegaNugget, and the fact that only the films are this real story of Star Wars, is it possible for even a milliNugget to be added?

Or, is it more likely that the windows' fogginess is based more on the ratio of Nuggets per page (Ng/pg ), where Nuggets come from the Absolute Canon only?

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.

You've apparently already come to the conclusion that he was generally addressing the world of licensing.

I find that conclusion inescapable, including the "general" aspect.

That should be enough to lead you to the (actual) point I've been trying to make; GL was merely stating who will continue to tell SW stories once Ep 3 is done and there will be no third trilogy.

Unfortunately, I also find the conclusion that he was referring to the general content of the licensing world as a parallel universe inescapable. His quote had farther-reaching implications than just "the EU after ROTJ".

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.

It appears we agree that Rostoni's first quote is simply a description of her job and makes no attempt to establish a place for the EU in the SWU. Thus I believe it is not a point in favor for either side of this debate and shouldn't be used for future posts.

The 'Wilson-Rostoni' quote is useful (at least for me) insofar as it contributes to the understanding of Continuity.

Rostoni's second quote does add some confusion with her use of the term "Canon" as the books w/o the Infinities logo. It too fails to address the EU's place in the SWU, her only mention of SW is her conviction to not undermine GL's own vision. I submit that this quote is also not a point in favor of either side, but it does merit further discussion on how her "Canon" can fit in with the other quotes on the Canon policy.

Agreed, provisionally. Were we without the Cerasi quote, the Rostoni quote would constitute a modern reinforcement of the place of the EU, along with the old Insider #23 quote.

The Cerasi quote is definitely worthy, as it addresses where the EU fits into the universe we see in the films.

Agreed unconditionally.

<Much snipping of quotes>

Sorry.

Again for the sake of brevity, I've snipped quite a few quotes. First, the link to the dictionary definition of continuity. As well, the Troy Denning and Sansweet quotes didn't even make use of the word "continuity", so I didn't find them pertinent.

While not making use of the term, they were addressing the concept.

"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)

The "overall continuity" this person speaks about looks like it could be that of both the SW films and the EU. How does this help your position? It may be helpful to know in what context this quote was offered as well as the identity of the person being quoted.

I was noting the distinction between "overall continuity" (as used above) and the seemingly more specific notions of c/Continuity as used in reference to the EU's internal consistency.

However, GL's method of creating his own stories with complete freedom from any EU material doesn't amount to him explicitly excluding their work from being a part of the SWU.

True, but I'm reminded, time and again, of Tim Gaskill's comment on the status of the Star Trek published works: "The Encyclopedia, Chronology, TM's, etc, *strive* to be canon, i.e. match up what appears on screen with the apparent inconsistencies that have occurred over the course of 35 years and over 500 hours of programming."

The EU works, based most especially on the Rostoni-Canon comments, *strive* to match up with the canon, but this does not mean they are in the same universe. Hell, the StarWars.com site separates Canon and EU data rather religiously in the databank section.

One thing I just noticed in your post, I shall address below.

2) If he did have to take the EU into account, it would lengthen the already time consuming process of making the movies.

Possibly, but I doubt letting Rostoni and friends review the script and suggest changes would be too much more time-consuming than usual.

3) Given that his stories represent a relatively small portion of the SW timeline, the odds that the films could completely contradict any given EU story are pretty small anyway (with the possible exception of the in-between stories).

True, but the primary issues we deal with aren't wholesale storyline contradiction, for the most part, but various conjectures and interpretations that are not represented or supported by the canon, and in some cases are contradictory.

4) The first three films have been out since 1983 with only minor changes in the SE. Any author foolish enough to write a book these days that is completely contradicted by them doesn't deserve to be pissed off, it's their own damn fault.

Agreed.

********** the thing I noticed **********

You mention above that X does not constitute an explicit exclusion of the EU from George's universe. The reason I'm troubled by that is that there is nothing that shows explicit inclusion of the EU, either. The thesis that the EU is included in the real story of Star Wars has lasted a long while, but it has remained only an argument . . . codified into law in certain circles, of course, but never a declared fact. Hence the comments on the Jedi Council site about "Movie Purists" vs. "Completists", and the link to the umpteenth rehash of their eternal struggle. http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4

[DarkStar]

The Jedi Council site features an interesting group of characters that take part in the "Movie Purists" vs. "Completists" battles. Known as the Expanded Universe Defense Force, they have taken it upon themselves to defend against any oppression by the Movie Purists.

Some interesting quotes from their "headquarters" thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp? ... lies=13948

***********
An expanded version of the Splinter quote:
***********


"It wasn't long after I began writing Star Wars that I realized the story was more then a single film could hold. As the saga of Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that could take at least nine films to tell-three trilogies-and I realized, in making my way through the back story and after story, that I was really setting out to write the middle story.

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 that 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."
-George Lucas, Del Rey Re-release of Splinter of the Mind's Eye, 1994.

*******************

"To keep it all straight there is 'the Canon,' a time line of major events and the life span of characters prepared by the continuity editors at Lucasfilm and considered the in-house bible of the Star Wars universe. When further reference is needed, there are also stacks of binders listing everything from starship blueprints to the biographies of characters..."
-Sue Rostoni, preface to Secrets of Shadows of the Empire, 1996.

**************
This one is pretty damning:
**************

TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the same characters and extending their stories.

George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a lot of different people. It works without me.
-TV Guide Interview with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01

************************

Good Evening Everyone:

I wanted to lend, what I'm assuming is, a rather unique perspective on this topic. I have the good fortune to write for Darkhorse Comics, and I can tell you from my own experience that George dose in fact look over the comics from time to time. And although all the story points in the film are not completed, if I'm doing a story that may come into conflict with what he's planing, or if it goes against his ideals -- I will hear about it.

I've even got his faxed sign-off to prove it.

He dose not go over everything, but he is very much aware of what is going on. ALL DH SW COMICS are approved by Lucasfilm. If it goes against something they disagree with, two things will happen. It will be corrected, or you won't see it.

I hope this is of interest. If there are any questions, I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilites.

Kevin

-Kevin Rubio, Dark Horse Comics, TF.N Lit Boards 12/03/01

*********************
This one seems to be another version of the tale told on Poe's page about the Sith vs. Dark Jedi thing
*********************

"The villain of Jedi Academy was planned as the spirit of a long-dead Dark Jedi. Anderson and Veitch bounced the story idea off Lucasfilm, and George Lucas suggested they turn the character into a Dark Lord of the Sith.

'We said, 'Okay, what's that?' We recieved reams of background on it, and from there developed this nasty bad guy, Exar Kun."

'To write this series, we would have to get into who exactly the Sith were', adds Veitch. 'This was territory that had been previously off-limits. But we were permitted to draw up lists of concepts and ideas and submit them to Lucas for consideration. His replies formed the basis of our plotting.'"
-STAR WARS GALAXY MAGAZINE, Summer 1996

*********

Maybe more to come . . . the thread is something like forty billion pages long. I'll keep you posted.

[DarkStar]

"There were parts of the movie that didn't live up to his vision, and
now he has the ability to fix and add to the movie," said Howard
Roffman, Lucasfilm's VP of licensing.

As posted at http://home.swipnet.se/~w-22083/base/news.htm

We knew this, of course, but I hadn't actually seen a source for it. There are also comments by Lucas after the quote above, but nothing quite so telling.

[DarkStar]

Cinescape.com has a 'teaser' of the Lucas interview, including a slightly modified preface. However, it is an easily-accessible online source:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editorial.as ... j_id=34918

"He also reiterated that there would be no third trilogy, despite what he said years ago about the whole story being a trilogy of trilogies. He said it was a joke, and THE ROLLING STONE printed the idea as fact. After EPISODE III, there will be only printed STAR WARS stories from now on.


“There are two worlds here,” explained 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 the 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.” "

[Cromag]

I do not find it useless, however, since it is a valid quote about the nature of the EU's c/Continuity. If we wish to discuss all definition-class quotes of this sort, it's in . . . but it is only out if we try to limit ourselves to quote specifically dealing with EU-Canon relations.

I believe it's best we consider it out, since our debate is regarding the EU relation to the canon films. The quote does use the term continuity, but it's not in the specific context of establishing a seperate universe from the one we see in the films. All this quote is about is how it was her job to keep the stories consistent with each other.

If by "canon" you mean "Continuity" or, more diplomatically, "Official EU", I could agree with your definitions. However, her use of the term "canon", being contrary to all other data on that term, might perhaps be better described as "Rostoni-Canon" (to refer to the subjects of her quote).

Let's try not to introduce new terms, there are already too many to keep track of . I reduced Rostoni's "Canon" to "official" because of Cerasi's quote wherein he referred to the published SW material. That material definitely includes the books that comprise the EU.

If we can agree on Cerasi's quote being the most important for our debate, then I really think Rostoni's second quote is important only insofar as she appears to agree with Cerasi that anything with the Infinities logo is not considered part of the SW history. Discussing only Cerasi's quote, and perhaps GL's Cinescape quote, would also shorten these posts, which I hope you agree would be a good thing.

Canon, until contradicted by the Canon . . . which means it "is as good as Canon, when the Canon is silent", according to the standard view.

"Canon until contradicted" and "is as good as Canon, when the Canon is silent" are both inferior to "canon". For the sake of simplicity, we make the distinction be between "official" and "canon".

Yes, Cerasi refers to the Absolute Canon. However, we already know from Insider #23 that the remainder of Canon (i.e. that which is not Absolute Canon (the movies)) is composed of the scripts, novelisations, and NPR radio dramas. The Rostoni-Canon is contradictory to this.

If Rostoni had tried to say that her "Canon" was superior to the canon films, scripts, etc. that would be a contradiction. However, all she said was that the books w/o the Infinities logo were considered Canon, which is true in the sense that she's dealing only with the books.

Cerasi refers to "every piece of published Star Wars fiction", which certainly includes Rostoni's "Canon". We've taken Cerasi's quote and shortened "every piece of published Star Wars fiction" to "official".

The Canon Policy comfortably describes the following as the Canon:
<Snip list>

And "official" is below canon. Granted, I did say "canon films", but I and anyone who uses EU material understands it's meant that the EU can't override the items you listed.

No analogy is perfect (if it was, it wouldn't be an analogy). What we can say with certainty is that, no matter which way you go with his analogy, unidentified and unidentifiable portions of the EU are simply false, from the view of the actual SW Canon universe.

His analogy is quite simple, each work produced for the EU is a window into the universe created by the films. There is no reason to break it down any further by having it also cover specific portions of specific works, be it a book, comic or game. That is a point the analogy doesn't even attempt to address, and that is what I mean by taking it beyond the breaking point.

No, because it also sets up important definitions of the terms.

The only definition in that quote was her "canon". This is good information, yes, but it doesn't address the issue of whether the EU is part of the SWU. Thus, it can be used by either side as a point in their favor, and both sides would be equally correct in their interpretation with nothing specific enough in the source to refute the opposing viewpoint.

Agreed. However, I think we are both at liberty to use as supporting evidence other quotes on the canon or EU, their relationship, and their definition.

If the quotes don't suffer from the same weakness as Rostoni's quotes, I agree. Thus far, GL's Cinescape and Cerasi's quotes are the only ones that relate the EU to the films. As well, there is the TV Guide quote you found.

The '96 Rostoni, '01 Rubio, and '96 Galaxy Mag quotes only show how Lucas Film and Lucas Books work hand in hand to keep a tight storyline. This rather reinforces the idea that the EU is part of the SW film universe.

The SotME quote is something we're already discussing and I don't believe the additional paragraph adds anything new.

Not counting any inadvertent discrepancies that might pop up from time to time, that's true, and it constitutes one of the most devastating arguments against the EU having any canonicity.

Not really devastating, no, as it's always been known that since GL doesn't hold himself to the EU he will contradict it from time to time. I've outlined the reasons for this and you agreed on at least two of the points, thus I can't see how you can be absolutely sure anymore of your position.

Depending on one's point of view, it may not, all by itself, constitute sufficient cause to eliminate the EU. However, in concert with the self-referential nature of the EU (which exists whether or not you agree with the "Canonicity" concept), there is a second line of attack on the EU's perceived canonicity. Mix in the first line of attack in regards to the Canon Policy, and the EU is engaged in a two-front war.

I'm not sure how being "self-referential" would be an attack on the EU's place in the SWU. For that matter, I'm not sure what you mean by the term, so please 'splain.

The canon policy, as described by Cerasi, has room for the EU, it's just that it is below the canon material when it comes to how clearly it shows us the SWU.

I think a better term would be, simply, "Expanded Universe", since that is the one Cerasi uses, and it does not require the question to be begged of whether the nuggets of truth one can get out of those windows constitute canon (or even sub-canon) fact in the Canon SW universe.

We use "official" simply because it's shorter. Cerasi made it pretty clear that the official material is subject to the canon films, scripts, etc. I don't see how this begs any question about how the EU stands up to the films.

Actually, no. Games are expressly labelled by Lucas as part of the parallel universe. I suppose you could argue that Cerasi, by not mentioning the Monopoly board game specifically, effectively excised it . . . but, I have the CD-ROM edition of said game, and Cerasi did mention video games (which, I would assume, is inclusive of computer games).

Since I'm arguing that the parallel universe that GL spoke of is the world of LL which produces books, comics, and games, you could say that for Cerasi, your computer game and my board game are a couple of products represented by the fuzzier windows (perhaps even abstract ones). However, they don't contribute to the storyline of the books.

Eek. Then how do we even know what is proper EU? I know we have the Rostoni-Canon, but it's a little unclear . . . she says "books" at one point, "things" in another.

I believe she's using "things" to cover both the books and magazine articles with the Infinities logo. The non-logo'd books and articles are what should be used when discussing story elements from the EU.

Parsimony aside, we seem to agree that it is all one universe . . . but are you suggesting a separate timeline for each?

No, I believe the Cinescape quote is merely referring to GL's world, most likely Lucas Film, and LL, which I believe is only a universe in the sense that it's one company that handles the production of several mediums of SW material.

Another issue would be semantic in nature . . . Lucas refers to the entire parallel universe as being "another world", suggesting one other as opposed to three.

Argh! Not semantics!

I'm sure he considers the offices of LL "another world", a colloquial expression everyone uses whether they produce sci-fi or not. The fact that the office handles licensing for many types of products would explain why it's appropriate to call it a universe.

He must be speaking of the content, and therefore the storyline. The 'intrude on his world' thing cannot refer to the early Eighties when the movies were coming out, for example. Instead, it must instead refer to the period of time in the two universes.

Or, it refers to the fact that LL has produced games, comics and books that tell stories which take place on the SW timeline in the gaps created by those we see in the films.

That may be all he was asked, assuming the intro text reflects the question, but his quote clearly deals with more sweeping issues.

I don't see why the interviewer would be concerned with anything but the truth to the Rolling Stones article. GL's quote is a very clear answer to the question of whether a third trilogy exists while at the same time giving fans some comfort in the idea that someone will still produce SW material after he's stopped making the films. It's quite a stretch to say he meant anything more.

But, since asking Lucas a question does not equal Lucas giving orders about what should and should not be, I don't think this serves as a useful example.

Useful to whom? You provided the link, I presumed you were using it to support your interpretation of GL's Cinescape quote in some fashion.

But, given that that the Absolute Canon is the real story of Star Wars (and therefore must contain (to use an arbitrary figure representing the total amount of Absolute Canon truth) 1 MegaNugget, and the fact that only the films are this real story of Star Wars, is it possible for even a milliNugget to be added?

I don't see why not, as neither Cerasi nor GL have said anything to the effect of the films being the entire story of Star Wars. I can see where some of the EU material could only have nuggets derived from the films, like the Infinities material. But the other books can add their own "nuggets" to the SWU, so long as they don't contradict what we see in the films.

Unfortunately, I also find the conclusion that he was referring to the general content of the licensing world as a parallel universe inescapable. His quote had farther-reaching implications than just "the EU after ROTJ".

If you can see that LL is what GL was referring to, and that LL is simply a company that produces SW books, games, and comics, then it should be apparent that GL doesn't need to be referring to the content in order for the quote to make sense. Thus, saying that he is referring to the content would be a case of reading too much into his words.

The 'Wilson-Rostoni' quote is useful (at least for me) insofar as it contributes to the understanding of Continuity.

I honestly don't see how as all it does is describe their job.

Agreed, provisionally. Were we without the Cerasi quote, the Rostoni quote would constitute a modern reinforcement of the place of the EU, along with the old Insider #23 quote.

Since it is only with our interpretation of the Cerasi quote that the Rostoni quotes are in any way useful to either side, I suggest we don't reference any source that doesn't deal specifically with the issue of how the EU relates to the universe we see in the films. This will shorten the posts considerably and allow us to focus on the essentials of the debate.

If one side makes a more convincing argument for their interpretation of the relevant quotes, then all the others are immediately a point in favor of the winning side.

While not making use of the term, they were addressing the concept.

Not specifically enough to be clearly a point in favor of one side over another.

<Snip SW Insider #23 quote
I was noting the distinction between "overall continuity" (as used above) and the seemingly more specific notions of c/Continuity as used in reference to the EU's internal consistency.

The overall continuity they speak of seems to consist of the works spinning out of GL's original stories and those created by other writers. If these "spun" works are the novelizations of the films (which is not an unreasonable assumption) then the quote supports the idea that EU continuity is not seperate from canon continuity.

It may be a good idea to find out the specifics about the quote.

<Snip ST reference>
The EU works, based most especially on the Rostoni-Canon comments, *strive* to match up with the canon, but this does not mean they are in the same universe. Hell, the StarWars.com site separates Canon and EU data rather religiously in the databank section.

All Rostoni strives for is the consistency of all additions to the EU and to make sure no story undermines GL's vision represented by the films. The first goal can only be in the context of the EU and she can meet or fail the second goal whether or not the EU is considered part of the SWU. Though, it's pretty hard to undermine something like a "vision" that you are not a part of, so it may be a good quote against your position.

Possibly, but I doubt letting Rostoni and friends review the script and suggest changes would be too much more time-consuming than usual.

There would be no point in lengthening the time at all. Since authors already know that GL may contradict them in small parts of their work, there is no point for him to make sure their stories aren't violated at all, thereby drawing out the creative process.

True, but the primary issues we deal with aren't wholesale storyline contradiction, for the most part, but various conjectures and interpretations that are not represented or supported by the canon, and in some cases are contradictory.

Well, the point I was trying to make was if the EU weren't part of the SWU, then there would be no way for them not to be contradicted, but that doesn't hold true. If I think up more reasons for why GL can contradict the EU but still consider them part of the SWU of the films, then I'll post 'em.

You mention above that X does not constitute an explicit exclusion of the EU from George's universe. The reason I'm troubled by that is that there is nothing that shows explicit inclusion of the EU, either. The thesis that the EU is included in the real story of Star Wars has lasted a long while, but it has remained only an argument . . . codified into law in certain circles, of course, but never a declared fact. Hence the comments on the Jedi Council site about "Movie Purists" vs. "Completists", and the link to the umpteenth rehash of their eternal struggle. http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4

If there were some explicit inclusion/exclusion, there would be no debate. The purpose of this debate is to decide who has the most evidence for their view. As to the issue of Movie Purists vs. Completists, those are positions one could have regardless of any statement, explicit or otherwise.

[DarkStar]

I do not find it useless, however, since it is a valid quote about the nature of the EU's c/Continuity. If we wish to discuss all definition-class quotes of this sort, it's in . . . but it is only out if we try to limit ourselves to quote specifically dealing with EU-Canon relations.

I believe it's best we consider it out, since our debate is regarding the EU relation to the canon films.

I'm afraid I cannot agree to that condition . . . our debate is regarding the EU-Canon relations, but we must have definitions of what is what. It can be, if you wish, a secondary source, but not out of the discussion entirely.

If by "canon" you mean "Continuity" or, more diplomatically, "Official EU", I could agree with your definitions. However, her use of the term "canon", being contrary to all other data on that term, might perhaps be better described as "Rostoni-Canon" (to refer to the subjects of her quote).

Let's try not to introduce new terms, there are already too many to keep track of . I reduced Rostoni's "Canon" to "official" because of Cerasi's quote wherein he referred to the published SW material. That material definitely includes the books that comprise the EU.

I'm afraid I must disagree again . . . the Rostoni-Canon seems book-specific, but may not be. In any event, the Rostoni-Canon should be referred to as such to keep it separate from Canon. Referring to it as "Official" may not be accurate.

If we can agree on Cerasi's quote being the most important for our debate, then I really think Rostoni's second quote is important only insofar as she appears to agree with Cerasi that anything with the Infinities logo is not considered part of the SW history. Discussing only Cerasi's quote, and perhaps GL's Cinescape quote, would also shorten these posts, which I hope you agree would be a good thing.

Let's focus on Cerasi and Lucas, yes. But, let's not ignore the others.

"Canon until contradicted" and "is as good as Canon, when the Canon is silent" are both inferior to "canon".

But, they are usually not treated that way . . . EU speculation is treated as hard fact.

It's very illuminating to read the discussions in the Jedi Council Forums . . . if a question not answered in the movies is asked, the general rule of thumb is that the EU group may offer the EU data as speculation, but not as hard fact. Individuals may continue to speculate, without having to regard the EU statements as the final word. Naturally, the JC Forums are not a source of Canon Policy statements or anything, but it is a refreshing look.

If Rostoni had tried to say that her "Canon" was superior to the canon films, scripts, etc. that would be a contradiction. However, all she said was that the books w/o the Infinities logo were considered Canon, which is true in the sense that she's dealing only with the books.

Hence my use of "Rostoni-Canon", to avoid confusion with "Canon-Canon".

No analogy is perfect (if it was, it wouldn't be an analogy). What we can say with certainty is that, no matter which way you go with his analogy, unidentified and unidentifiable portions of the EU are simply false, from the view of the actual SW Canon universe.

His analogy is quite simple, each work produced for the EU is a window into the universe created by the films. There is no reason to break it down any further by having it also cover specific portions of specific works, be it a book, comic or game. That is a point the analogy doesn't even attempt to address, and that is what I mean by taking it beyond the breaking point.

But his comments do not make the books indivisible. By using the phrase "nugget of truth", he invited us to take a look at the, for want of a better phrase, subatomic level.

Agreed. However, I think we are both at liberty to use as supporting evidence other quotes on the canon or EU, their relationship, and their definition.

If the quotes don't suffer from the same weakness as Rostoni's quotes, I agree. Thus far, GL's Cinescape and Cerasi's quotes are the only ones that relate the EU to the films. As well, there is the TV Guide quote you found.

The '96 Rostoni, '01 Rubio, and '96 Galaxy Mag quotes only show how Lucas Film and Lucas Books work hand in hand to keep a tight storyline. This rather reinforces the idea that the EU is part of the SW film universe.

I wouldn't say they are trying to keep a tight storyline . . . for instance, Rostoni seems to make reference to her Rostoni-Canon again, and suggests that it is "in-house". There's a certain amount of informality which, while expected, is damned annoying for our purposes.

One thing we need to be careful of is that often-times, people will refer to LucasFilms and LucasBooks interchangeably. Much like Cerasi commented on with the "canon" and "continuity" business, such phrasings can be misleading. LucasBooks is a subset of Lucas Licensing, which is another Lucas company 'separate' from LucasFilms. As far as Canon Policy "command structure" goes, however, I think it is safe to put Lucas Licensing as subordinate to LucasFilms.

The SotME quote is something we're already discussing and I don't believe the additional paragraph adds anything new.

Perhaps. I'm still looking for more quotes . . . I haven't really bothered with analysis yet.

Not counting any inadvertent discrepancies that might pop up from time to time, that's true, and it constitutes one of the most devastating arguments against the EU having any canonicity.

Not really devastating, no, as it's always been known that since GL doesn't hold himself to the EU he will contradict it from time to time. I've outlined the reasons for this and you agreed on at least two of the points, thus I can't see how you can be absolutely sure anymore of your position.

Many arguments have several agreeable premises, but one or two bad ones. Some arguments have all agreeable premises, but an unsupportable conclusion. Just in general.

In this case, I agreed with you on two things, but not on the conclusion based on the entire set of premises. LucasFilms and LucasBooks can try to make a tight storyline all day, but so long as Lucas, keeper and creator of the one true Canon, feels free to ignore that, there's more going on than deference to the creator. He considers the EU outside his universe, as he has stated twice. He may go play in it from time to time, and may even snatch an idea here and there, but that does not alter the fact that the EU universe is not his own.

Depending on one's point of view, it may not, all by itself, constitute sufficient cause to eliminate the EU. However, in concert with the self-referential nature of the EU (which exists whether or not you agree with the "Canonicity" concept), there is a second line of attack on the EU's perceived canonicity. Mix in the first line of attack in regards to the Canon Policy, and the EU is engaged in a two-front war.

I'm not sure how being "self-referential" would be an attack on the EU's place in the SWU. For that matter, I'm not sure what you mean by the term, so please 'splain.

For instance, the Canon is self-referential, insofar as Lucas bases the movies exclusively on his own concepts. (He might snatch an idea or two, but the basic ideas are his). The EU is self-referential insofar as new creations within it are not strictly based on canon, but must also answer to prior EU elements and data points.

If, as per Cerasi, the EU is like a window, then the EU (later EU especially) is several windows back-to-back, each one filtering one's view of the Canon SW Universe.

I think a better term would be, simply, "Expanded Universe", since that is the one Cerasi uses, and it does not require the question to be begged of whether the nuggets of truth one can get out of those windows constitute canon (or even sub-canon) fact in the Canon SW universe.

We use "official" simply because it's shorter. Cerasi made it pretty clear that the official material is subject to the canon films, scripts, etc. I don't see how this begs any question about how the EU stands up to the films.

Well, it just makes me nervous on that account, given the standing that the term "official" is thought to convey by the "EU Completists" of the SW debate circles.

Another issue would be semantic in nature . . . Lucas refers to the entire parallel universe as being "another world", suggesting one other as opposed to three.

Argh! Not semantics!

I know, I'm sorry.

I'm sure he considers the offices of LL "another world", a colloquial expression everyone uses whether they produce sci-fi or not. The fact that the office handles licensing for many types of products would explain why it's appropriate to call it a universe.

k

He must be speaking of the content, and therefore the storyline. The 'intrude on his world' thing cannot refer to the early Eighties when the movies were coming out, for example. Instead, it must instead refer to the period of time in the two universes.

Or, it refers to the fact that LL has produced games, comics and books that tell stories which take place on the SW timeline in the gaps created by those we see in the films.

Ah, but there's the confirmation in the TV Guide to contend with . . .

That may be all he was asked, assuming the intro text reflects the question, but his quote clearly deals with more sweeping issues.

I don't see why the interviewer would be concerned with anything but the truth to the Rolling Stones article. GL's quote is a very clear answer to the question of whether a third trilogy exists while at the same time giving fans some comfort in the idea that someone will still produce SW material after he's stopped making the films. It's quite a stretch to say he meant anything more.

With the Cinescape quote alone, it might have been debatable. But, in the light of the TV Guide quote, it is pretty clear that it is his global opinion.

But, given that that the Absolute Canon is the real story of Star Wars (and therefore must contain (to use an arbitrary figure representing the total amount of Absolute Canon truth) 1 MegaNugget, and the fact that only the films are this real story of Star Wars, is it possible for even a milliNugget to be added?

I don't see why not, as neither Cerasi nor GL have said anything to the effect of the films being the entire story of Star Wars.

Well, there was this:

"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films."
Cerasi

The rest of the Canon (not EU) is regarded as "very accurate", in his terms, but there may be differences.

I can see where some of the EU material could only have nuggets derived from the films, like the Infinities material. But the other books can add their own "nuggets" to the SWU, so long as they don't contradict what we see in the films.

I do not see how.

Unfortunately, I also find the conclusion that he was referring to the general content of the licensing world as a parallel universe inescapable. His quote had farther-reaching implications than just "the EU after ROTJ".

If you can see that LL is what GL was referring to, and that LL is simply a company that produces SW books, games, and comics, then it should be apparent that GL doesn't need to be referring to the content in order for the quote to make sense. Thus, saying that he is referring to the content would be a case of reading too much into his words.

I'm afraid I must stand by my position, especially in light of the 'new' TV Guide quote.

Agreed, provisionally. Were we without the Cerasi quote, the Rostoni quote would constitute a modern reinforcement of the place of the EU, along with the old Insider #23 quote.

Since it is only with our interpretation of the Cerasi quote that the Rostoni quotes are in any way useful to either side, I suggest we don't reference any source that doesn't deal specifically with the issue of how the EU relates to the universe we see in the films. This will shorten the posts considerably and allow us to focus on the essentials of the debate.

But the definitions and so on are the first step toward the essentials of the debate. We have to know what we're talking about before we can talk about it.

The problem I see is that you and I can sit here with the Cerasi and Lucas quotes all day long, debating until we are blue in the face, but not come up with anything extra. We would likely also get into semantics situations, which we both hope to avoid.

As an example, we have reached a bit of an impasse already, in regards to whether Lucas referred to the licensing organization or the content in Cinescape. I was firmly convinced of the content-meaning previously . . . you gave excellent reason for me to question that, of course, but after doing so, I finally came down in favor of the content-meaning view, again, and this has been reinforced by the TV Guide thing (which, to be honest, I hoped to avoid saying so much (just on principle), but it keeps coming to mind).

If one side makes a more convincing argument for their interpretation of the relevant quotes, then all the others are immediately a point in favor of the winning side.

The problem I see is that the whole debate (not ours, just the whole thing in general) started because I noticed that a lot of hazy quotes were being used piecemeal to support the EU Completism. To award the quotes to either side due to victory on another would repeat the error, no matter which one of our arguments emerged victorious.

The overall continuity they speak of seems to consist of the works spinning out of GL's original stories and those created by other writers. If these "spun" works are the novelizations of the films (which is not an unreasonable assumption) then the quote supports the idea that EU continuity is not seperate from canon continuity.

I don't see how. The Absolute Canon (films), screenplays, novelizations, and radio dramas are the "spun" works, specifically identified as all being Canon. The "rest", meaning everything else, basically, is by other writers. I don't see how you're reaching the conclusion that the works by other writers are part of the "'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it".

Example:
Had Lucas not seen the Dark Jedi element and altered it to Sith stuff, the Dark Jedi element would have entered the 'overall continuity' and the EU Continuity, but would not have met with Lucas's beliefs on the Canon. It would have been ignored by Lucas, more than likely.

The EU works, based most especially on the Rostoni-Canon comments, *strive* to match up with the canon, but this does not mean they are in the same universe. Hell, the StarWars.com site separates Canon and EU data rather religiously in the databank section.

All Rostoni strives for is the consistency of all additions to the EU and to make sure no story undermines GL's vision represented by the films.

True.

The first goal can only be in the context of the EU

Quite true.

and she can meet or fail the second goal whether or not the EU is considered part of the SWU.

Also quite true. I'm not sure if I'd looked at it that way, but in any case you are absolutely correct.

Though, it's pretty hard to undermine something like a "vision" that you are not a part of, so it may be a good quote against your position.

This, I don't see. She supervises works which have the Star Wars brand name . . . whether the storyline content of these works is part of the Canon universe or not is irrelevant.

If there were some explicit inclusion/exclusion, there would be no debate. The purpose of this debate is to decide who has the most evidence for their view. As to the issue of Movie Purists vs. Completists, those are positions one could have regardless of any statement, explicit or otherwise.

I think you misunderstand . . . having read the discussions between Movie Purists and Completists (which seem to get as heated as some of the discussions here, though threads are prone to deletion there), theres is not just a battle of who likes what more.

They have, in fact, been debating the point of what the real Star Wars is the entire time. I am a Movie Purist, in other words . . . and quite the latecomer, too.

[Cromag]

I'm afraid I must disagree again . . . the Rostoni-Canon seems book-specific, but may not be. In any event, the Rostoni-Canon should be referred to as such to keep it separate from Canon. Referring to it as "Official" may not be accurate.

This is the line of reasoning I used: Cerasi said that the windows into the SWU consisted of "...every piece of published Star Wars fiction...." and clearly stated that in terms of authority, they are inferior to the films. For the sake of simplicity, we call all that material "official". Rostoni's canon material is a subset of the published SW fiction, thus it falls into the "official" category. How she refers to it for purposes of her job is irrelevant, Cerasi has told us where it belongs.

But, they are usually not treated that way . . . EU speculation is treated as hard fact.

Anyone who claims the material they got from an EU source is hard fact is making a mistake.Every piece of information from the EU is understood to be "canon until contradicted". Any good debater already knows this and doesn't pretend otherwise.

But his comments do not make the books indivisible. By using the phrase "nugget of truth", he invited us to take a look at the, for want of a better phrase, subatomic level.

He made no mention of the size of the nuggets, he merely stated each work has them. Again, the analogy is being used to illustrate a point it never originally addressed. Oh, and I'll be damned if I'm going to analyze a POS like Darksaber on a subatomic level.

I wouldn't say they are trying to keep a tight storyline . . . for instance, Rostoni seems to make reference to her Rostoni-Canon again, and suggests that it is "in-house". There's a certain amount of informality which, while expected, is damned annoying for our purposes.

My point regarding the quotes was that it demonstrates a working relationship between Lucas Film and Lucas Books that suggests they are part of one continuity.

In this case, I agreed with you on two things, but not on the conclusion based on the entire set of premises. LucasFilms and LucasBooks can try to make a tight storyline all day, but so long as Lucas, keeper and creator of the one true Canon, feels free to ignore that, there's more going on than deference to the creator. He considers the EU outside his universe, as he has stated twice. He may go play in it from time to time, and may even snatch an idea here and there, but that does not alter the fact that the EU universe is not his own.

Well, given that you agreed with a couple of those points, you must see that I, too, admit that there is more to the policy than deference to GL. As well, it is clear that by and large, GL doesn't consider the EU his own creation. However, these points do not amount to a wholesale exclusion of the EU from the universe we see in the films. As to the two quotes which I assume are from Cinescape and TV Guide, those are discussed below.

For instance, the Canon is self-referential, insofar as Lucas bases the movies exclusively on his own concepts. (He might snatch an idea or two, but the basic ideas are his). The EU is self-referential insofar as new creations within it are not strictly based on canon, but must also answer to prior EU elements and data points.

Much clearer now, thanks. On the canon concept, I agree completely. As to the EU, with new creations, yes you are correct, but anytime they work with the main chars from the films, they have to refer to the canon. Yes, the relationship is largely EU pulling from canon, but the fact that there is some of the EU sneaking into the canon films certainly can't mean it's completely excluded from canon continuity.

If, as per Cerasi, the EU is like a window, then the EU (later EU especially) is several windows back-to-back, each one filtering one's view of the Canon SW Universe.

Cerasi's analogy didn't even suggest we should stack windows. Just that each work is a window with a degree of clarity dependent upon the medium (eg. book, comic, game) and whether it carries the Infinities logo.

If authors wrote for the EU and used already published works as their sole reference material, I could see how stacking the windows would work. Given that we know they have in-house sources from both Lucas Film and Lucas Books, it's clear that each work should be considered its own seperate window.

Well, there was this:

<Snip Cerasi quote>

The rest of the Canon (not EU) is regarded as "very accurate", in his terms, but there may be differences.

Sure, but my point was that neither GL nor Cerasi have said that the entire story of SW is the films. If they had, it would preclude the possibility of the EU adding to the SWU and this debate would be pointless.

I can see where some of the EU material could only have nuggets derived from the films, like the Infinities material. But the other books can add their own "nuggets" to the SWU, so long as they don't contradict what we see in the films.

I do not see how.

For instance, Han and Leia's marriage is not contradicted by the films. Thus we have a nugget of truth.

But the definitions and so on are the first step toward the essentials of the debate. We have to know what we're talking about before we can talk about it.

The debate is over the concept that the EU is a seperate universe from the universe we see in the films. The only relevant quotes are those that relate the EU to the canon films. Thus far, we have the GL quotes in Cinescape and TV Guide as well as Cerasi's quote.

The definition of your terms rely on whether the your basic concept is true or not. Given that one side is arguing against the basic concept, there is no way for us both to agree to your definitions without first settling whether your concept is correct. This is why the Rostoni quotes and the others are pointless to debate right now.

As an example, we have reached a bit of an impasse already, in regards to whether Lucas referred to the licensing organization or the content in Cinescape. I was firmly convinced of the content-meaning previously . . . you gave excellent reason for me to question that, of course, but after doing so, I finally came down in favor of the content-meaning view, again, and this has been reinforced by the TV Guide thing (which, to be honest, I hoped to avoid saying so much (just on principle), but it keeps coming to mind).

I didn't entertain any serious hopes of completely changing your mind. Indeed, your proclamation of being a "Movie Purist" gives me even less hope. So, as is the case in many debates, the object becomes convincing the readers that my side has more support than yours.

I hope the "excellent reasons" you refer to are enough to convince the readers that my interpretation of the Cinescape quote is correct. I can't begin to guess what further objections you had since you suggest it wasn't the addition of the TV Guide quote and don't mention anything else specifically.

As to the TV Guide quote itself, he's not saying the sequels take place outside his universe, just that they're not done by him nor do they require any work from him. Notice that his "universe" in '01 is now his "world" in '02, this suggests that he's using colloquialisms to refer to different real world companies rather than the strict concept of seperate universes for the stories in the films and those in the EU.

The tone of the question from TVG suggests it may be useful to see the preceding exchange, perhaps even the entire interview.

The problem I see is that the whole debate (not ours, just the whole thing in general) started because I noticed that a lot of hazy quotes were being used piecemeal to support the EU Completism. To award the quotes to either side due to victory on another would repeat the error, no matter which one of our arguments emerged victorious.

If one side is victorious on the issue of the EU's place in the SW continuity, then the additional quotes are simply reinforcements. If they are ever in doubt, just refer back to the winning concept and see if they make sense in that light.

I don't see how. The Absolute Canon (films), screenplays, novelizations, and radio dramas are the "spun" works, specifically identified as all being Canon. The "rest", meaning everything else, basically, is by other writers. I don't see how you're reaching the conclusion that the works by other writers are part of the "'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it".

There is nothing in the quote to suggest that the official material is gospel, nor do I believe I proposed that. I believe the quote says that "the rest" (which includes EU stories) is part of the overall continuity including that of the films.

This, I don't see. She supervises works which have the Star Wars brand name . . . whether the storyline content of these works is part of the Canon universe or not is irrelevant.

I was making a generalization, not necessarily a debate point, that unless one is actually part of a "vision", it's very hard to do anything to undermine it.

Yes, I've snipped quite a bit from our exchange. I'm hoping that all I took out was the repetitive, non-essential sections. If there is something you believe is vital that I cut out, please say so and I'll re-check to make sure its exclusion wasn't accidental.

[Coyote]

Games and Canon...

I went to the Canon discussion board, which has evolved into the "holographic bullets debate team", and posed the question about the LucasArts games to Master Wong...

He informed me that the policy of the Board mirrors the policy of Lucas regarding the games: that the Games are "Official" but cannont be considered "Canon". The explanation for this is that the games, characters, settings, and events are relevant to the Star Wars universe, but because the game play of millions of individual PC gamers cannot be quantified, there is no way that it can be blindly accepted as Canon.

So that the hacker ('scuse me, 'haqr') who devises a skin making Kyle Katarn into a Velociraptor wearing Superman Underoos cannot then say that Velociraptors are Force sensitive 'cause he made it so in his game.

But otherwise, yeah, we can conjecture about Boba Fett taking out Dark Troopers or Reborn Jedi, and how they would fare against the Borg are as relevant to the discussion as any other SW character... (Hmmm... Boba Fett vs. Desann...?)

[DarkStar]

For the sake of simplicity, we call all that material "official".

I think that's the main part I find troubling . . . "Expanded Universe", as a term, carries no specific implication to me in reference to the relationship with canon, but "official" carries the implication that it is accepted sub-canon.

But, they are usually not treated that way . . . EU speculation is treated as hard fact.

Anyone who claims the material they got from an EU source is hard fact is making a mistake.Every piece of information from the EU is understood to be "canon until contradicted".

That's just it . . . there's not really a source which specifically says "canon until contradicted", but there are sources which deny it. This 'temporary Canonicity' idea is peculiar.

He made no mention of the size of the nuggets, he merely stated each work has them. Again, the analogy is being used to illustrate a point it never originally addressed.

Again, without knowing just how hazy a piece of work is supposed to be, any effort to gain data from it is going to be awful. What we're left with is subjective analysis of the EU . . . picking and choosing. I'll come back to this below.

Oh, and I'll be damned if I'm going to analyze a POS like Darksaber on a subatomic level.

Yeah, I flipped through a copy once. That's where the good ole' full-power turbolaser forest-fires came from, as well as an angry woman bending a durasteel rod by hitting a table with it.

And now, the continuation of the point above . . .

Take Darksaber, for instance. Now, if we are to try to make observations of firepower and hull strength based on this work, even taking the highest possible figures, we will arrive at a figure which is in a state of gross contradiction with other works.

We are left with the following options:

0. (the one usually done in debate circles) Try to find some way to rationalize it, no matter how absurd that rationalization is.

1. Take Cerasi's windows and nuggets as indivisible, atomic phenomena. Assign the entire book Darksaber a low or high reliability (haze factor) overall, based on a rough overall percentage of its correlation with canon and other EU works in regards to storyline, characterization, and technology. Only take firepower data from the sources which are most reliable overall.

2. Take Cerasi's windows and nuggets as divisible, subatomic phenomena.
Assign the firepower and hull strength figures a low or high reliability, based on correlation with canon and other EU works.

(Feel free to spell out more options if I've missed something, but I think that pretty much covers it)

The problems with each are manifold. Option 0 leads one to absurdities in a number of situations . . . in this case the usual argument is something like "well, see, the SSD had some extra-small VVLTLs (Very, Very Light Turbolasers), and that's what was making the forest fires", even though one good shot from any of the others ought to have made much more of a scene. (Note . . . let's not branch off into a debate on Darksaber. I'm just providing an example. )

Option 1 and 2 are both based on the premise that the majority of the EU is more likely to be closer to the real Canon SW universe than the minority. Therefore, the highest-reliability figures would have to be those which are closest to the middle of the road. That means that both Darksaber and E2ICS would both have to be excised, as well as a lot of other works.

But is that premise correct? Is the average going to be closest to the truth? It may not . . . the vast majority of the EU could mislead. Cerasi said only that "some windows are foggier than others". Should we figure out the canon's figures and then only allow similar figures from the EU?

Bingo. That last option sounds the most reasonable to me.

Of course, the consequences of an argument are generally (and, in most cases, quite rightly) considered not to affect the truth value of the argument. In other words, it is of questionable propriety that I make this point. But, in this case, we're trying to arrive at a method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist. We have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by definition, virtually free from error.

It would seem, then, that at least with the firepower example, the best thing to do is to figure out what the Canon says, and (if you wish to allow EU data) only allow that EU which falls in line with the Canon. This is, however, quite contrary to the common "logical interpolation by us" doctrine that only very specific contradictions between Canon and EU should result in EU data being thrown out.

This argument can be extended, with limited modifications, to a few other areas . . . ship speed, planet locations, and so on . . . but would not work so well in the case of brand new things. For example, Canon limitation of EU data such as the resonance torpedo would not work, because it is waaaay outside the Canon data set, but that does not necessarily preclude its existence.

Sorry, I'm kinda rambling. I'll shut up . . . but, on the other hand, perhaps I have just provided something of a compromise position. Something to think about . . .

(Of course, people are still debating about just what the canon figures are, so it isn't like the debate would end just because some EU figures got thrown out . . . )

As well, it is clear that by and large, GL doesn't consider the EU his own creation. However, these points do not amount to a wholesale exclusion of the EU from the universe we see in the films.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is precisely the term 'universe' that Lucas uses . . . that's how I ended up with the no-EU argument.

Much clearer now, thanks. On the canon concept, I agree completely. As to the EU, with new creations, yes you are correct, but anytime they work with the main chars from the films, they have to refer to the canon. Yes, the relationship is largely EU pulling from canon, but the fact that there is some of the EU sneaking into the canon films certainly can't mean it's completely excluded from canon continuity.

If, as per Cerasi, the EU is like a window, then the EU (later EU especially) is several windows back-to-back, each one filtering one's view of the Canon SW Universe.

Cerasi's analogy didn't even suggest we should stack windows. Just that each work is a window with a degree of clarity dependent upon the medium (eg. book, comic, game) and whether it carries the Infinities logo.

If authors wrote for the EU and used already published works as their sole reference material, I could see how stacking the windows would work. Given that we know they have in-house sources from both Lucas Film and Lucas Books, it's clear that each work should be considered its own seperate window.

I'm afraid that some measure of window-stacking would have to be unavoidable, based on Rostoni's comments about their stacks of data, and Denning's statements on the NJO bible, et cetera.

Sure, but my point was that neither GL nor Cerasi have said that the entire story of SW is the films. If they had, it would preclude the possibility of the EU adding to the SWU and this debate would be pointless.

But, Cerasi did state that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. If 'entire' = 'only real', then I would agree that debate is pointless.

Yes, I've snipped quite a bit from our exchange. I'm hoping that all I took out was the repetitive, non-essential sections. If there is something you believe is vital that I cut out, please say so and I'll re-check to make sure its exclusion wasn't accidental.

It's okay, I just snipped a lot, too, once we hit that last little morsel.