Ms Traviss redeems herself (spoilers, LotF:Revelation)

[Stark]

From what I understand, the X-Wing novels make Wedge into a hero. Instead of 'duh what do you mean the shield is up, my scope doesn't say anything' Wedge from the movies.

Frankly, I find Wedge's remark (by itself extremely unconvincing and vague, particularly since it features no specifics bar a negative) to be quite a backhanded compliment. He basically says that he respects him because he runs away from situations he considers unwinnable and lacks the bravery or dedication of other Imperial officers. Being 'a very good tactician' wouldn't really be surprising given his long tenure in command of a warship, but it's pretty unsupported by evidence (and Wedge doesn't provide any). Being 'excellent at command' seems almost meaningless - command... what? Is he referring to his leadership? His manner with the men? His planning and thoroughness? His boldness and initiative (LOL)? Wedge can certainly personally respect Pellaeon's actions and attitudes from his personal perspective, but that doesn't change the facts. Indeed, he says 'that alone' separates him from other commanders, which suggests that may be his primary reason for respecting him (what Wedge sees as clear-mindedness, unwillingness to pursue impossible objectives and disregard for Imperial arrogance, and others might see as his incompetence and cowardice).

What's the context to the quote? Is it recently after the battle, or years later? Is this after the detente? Had they ever met personally? How much did Wedge know of his career and decisionmaking at the time? Is this an official statement or simply conversation?

[His Divine Shadow]

The last book I liked was Traitor, it was one of my all time favorites, I think I bought two books after that, they all sucked. Given all I have read on the latter SW books and the general outline of the plot, I am never buying another SW book again, unless they just fucking delete the entire EU and begin anew.

This trainwreck is just too fucked to bother with.

[Androsphinx]

The problem with assessing Pelleaon on the basis of the entirety of the EU is that it's just too inconsistent to allow such a reading. Whenever Pelleon is described, it's as a competant commander, and his rise to command first the Imperial Remnant and then the GFFA forces seems to bear that out. When he gets involved with Daala, his competence is directly correlated to the plot demands of KJA's book, as are his loyalties.

As for taking 50 years to make Captain, and an "illegal retreat" at Endor - Zahn made those almost the first things we knew about Pelleaon, eighteen years ago when the EU really began. At which time no-one knew (or it's possible Zahn didn't care) about the details of command at Endor, how long ago the Clone Wars were, and how humans in the SW galaxy aged. This is one of the occasions where treating the EU as omnisignificant (to borrow James Kugel's phrase) and internally consistent gives a portrait entirely at odds with those of the writers.

[Stark]

While the EU is indeed nonsense, are you saying we should ignore facts in the EU simply because they disagree with the feelings of an author?

[Androsphinx]

While the EU is indeed nonsense, are you saying we should ignore facts in the EU simply because they disagree with the feelings of an author?

It's not just the feelings of an author, it's what's written directly or indirectly about a character's abilities. Pelleaon became supreme commander of the GFFA, wins large-scale battles against superior YV forces (I gave up on the EU before their invasion, so I'm going on hersay), and is consistently described by other characters as being one of the best commanders around. Those are all facts in the EU.

What are also facts in the EU, but ones which are reached by assembling different sources that were never consciously correlated together, are that Pelleon took a very long time to make Captain, made various plot-based errors (in the same books that describe him as being very competent), and ordered an illegal retreat at Endor. It's exactly the same problem you have when trying to get a coherent story out of any collection of contradictory literature - the bible is one of the best examples, with thousands upon thousands of stories made up by later exegetes trying to solve these problems.

Obviously, that option isn't open to us. What we can, and I think should, do in such circumstances, is to give these texts a charitable reading. If we can explain, say, Pellaeon's retreat at Endor without having him violating the chain of command and causing the loss of a battle which could have been won - a description of events which jars totally with what we directly know of his character, not to mention his continuing command - we should do so. And if we can't think of a coherent explanation, we should where possible (and here it is possible) say "We can't think of a good reason for Pellaeon's actions at Endor. But since they run contrary to everything that is written about him elsewhere (including Thrawn's own description of the battle to Pellaeon, where he obviously doesn't mention it), we'll leave it to one side, especially as it's not directly recorded, but is based on the interpretation of two potentially misleading sources".

In other words, treat the EU like a newspaper, not the Bible.[/i]

[Publius]

So your suggestion is to pick and choose evidence that suits your preferred interpretation, by appealing to out-of-universe factors. His blunders are to be excused because they are unflattering? Is your intent biography or hagiography?

[Androsphinx]

So your suggestion is to pick and choose evidence that suits your preferred interpretation, by appealing to out-of-universe factors. His blunders are to be excused because they are unflattering? Is your intent biography or hagiography?

When our sources of evidence are clearly self-contraditctory and internally inconsistent, we should not expect to be able to construct a clear assessment of issues - like Pellaeon's competence - which span many different sources.

What we can do to minimise the contradictions is to give primacy to sources which directly give assessments (such as Wedge's opinion of Pellaeon) or which strongly imply such assessments (such as his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander, or whatever his title was), rather than inferences gathered from a combination of sources, or those which are substantively plot-driven.

It isn't, to the best of my knowledge, recorded that Pellaeon broke the chain of command, issued an illegal withdrawal and substantially contributed to the defeat at Endor. Rather we learn in one place of his assuming command at Endor, and elsewhere (in a rather more obscure source) that fighting led by a High Admiral continued for some hours at Endor. In such a situation one could claim, for example, that Pellaeon's retreat came after the High Admiral's surrender/destruction; or that the High Admiral himself assumed command improperly; or that the battle was clearly lost and the High Admiral's actions were futile and suicidal and legally did not need to be obeyed; or that the High Admiral's actions were delibarately designed to draw pressure off the rest of the fleet so that it could withdraw - or any number of other things.

This is how Zahn describes Endor in HttE. There is, obviously, not a hint of illegal orders or gross incompetence (at least, nothing unique to Pellaeon) - reference is made at least twice to Pellaeon fighting on, and he only retreats when official orders are given:

With theExecutor 's leadership gone, the battle had quickly turned into a confused rout, with several other Star Destroyers being lost before the order to withdraw had finally been given. Pellaeon himself, taking command when theChimera 's former captain was killed, had done what he could to hold things together; but despite his best efforts, they had never regained the initiative against the Rebels....

Thrawn smiled back. "It is indeed. Tell me, Master C'baoth: are you familiar with the Imperial Fleet's disastrous defeat at the Battle of Endor five years ago?"
"I've heard rumors. One of the offworlders who came here spoke about it." C'baoth's gaze drifted to the window, to the palace/crypt visible across the square. "Though only briefly."
Pellaeon swallowed. Thrawn himself didn't seem to notice the implication. "Then you must have wondered how a few dozen Rebel ships could possibly rout an Imperial force that outgunned it by at least ten to one."
"I didn't spend much time with such wonderings," C'baoth said dryly. "I assumed that the Rebels were simply better warriors."
"In a sense, that's true," Thrawn agreed. "The Rebels did indeed fight cetter, but not because of any special abilities or training. They fought better than the Fleet because the Emperor was dead."
He turned to look at Pellaeon. "You were there, Captain—you must have noticed it. The sudden loss of coordination between crew members and ships; the loss of efficiency and discipline. The loss, in short, of
that elusive quality we call fighting spirit."
"There was some confusion, yes," Pellaeon said stiffly. He was starting to see where Thrawn was going with this, and he didn't like it a bit. "But nothing that can't be explained by the normal stresses of battle."
One blue-black eyebrow went up, just slightly. "Really? The loss of theExecutor —the sudden, last-minute TIE fighter incompetence that brought about the destruction of the Death Star itself—the loss
of six other Star Destroyers in engagements that none of them should have had trouble with? All of that nothing but normal battle stress?"
"The Emperor was not directing the battle," Pellaeon snapped with a fire that startled him. "Not in any way. I was there, Admiral—Iknow."...
Thrawn said, his voice abruptly hard. "And it's time you gave up your
blindfold and faced the truth, no matter how bitter you find it. You had no real fighting spirit of your own anymore—none of you in the Imperial Fleet did. It was the Emperor's will that drove you; the Emperor's
mind that provided you with strength and resolve and efficiency. You were as dependent on that presence as if you were all borg-implanted into a combat computer."
"That's not true," Pellaeon shot back, stomach twisting painfully within him. "It can't be. We fought on after his death."
"Yes," Thrawn said, his voice quiet and contemptuous. "You fought on. Like cadets."

[Stark]

It's not just the feelings of an author, it's what's written directly or indirectly about a character's abilities. Pelleaon became supreme commander of the GFFA, wins large-scale battles against superior YV forces (I gave up on the EU before their invasion, so I'm going on hersay), and is consistently described by other characters as being one of the best commanders around. Those are all facts in the EU.

What are also facts in the EU, but ones which are reached by assembling different sources that were never consciously correlated together, are that Pelleon took a very long time to make Captain, made various plot-based errors (in the same books that describe him as being very competent), and ordered an illegal retreat at Endor. It's exactly the same problem you have when trying to get a coherent story out of any collection of contradictory literature - the bible is one of the best examples, with thousands upon thousands of stories made up by later exegetes trying to solve these problems.

Obviously, that option isn't open to us. What we can, and I think should, do in such circumstances, is to give these texts a charitable reading. If we can explain, say, Pellaeon's retreat at Endor without having him violating the chain of command and causing the loss of a battle which could have been won - a description of events which jars totally with what we directly know of his character, not to mention his continuing command - we should do so. And if we can't think of a coherent explanation, we should where possible (and here it is possible) say "We can't think of a good reason for Pellaeon's actions at Endor. But since they run contrary to everything that is written about him elsewhere (including Thrawn's own description of the battle to Pellaeon, where he obviously doesn't mention it), we'll leave it to one side, especially as it's not directly recorded, but is based on the interpretation of two potentially misleading sources".

In other words, treat the EU like a newspaper, not the Bible.

No.

Leaving aside the SoD issues which I'm sure others can handle better than I, your argument is broken. We don't HAVE to explain away his failings to allow his later career to exist. As Publius has already demonstrated, people have become 'supreme commanders' without a brilliant career of battlefield success. The particulars of the battle of Endor do not preclude him later rising to promenence after, what, twenty years? When he's spent the intervening decades involved in the very highest circles of Galactic affairs? Given the favour shown to him by heroes of the New Republic (according to the quote on the last page, not that I'm aware of it's context) this could suggest all manner of backroom deals and shenanigans.

Personally, I find the fact that a worthless moron like Pellaeon could become supreme commander of the GFFA a very interesting idea, from a political perspective. Using his later political career (and unsupported statements by other characters, ie dialogue) to dismiss the known facts of his career is utterly broken and wrong. It's also unnecessary, so why do it? To make it 'clean' and 'simple' instead of an interesting indictment of NR/GFFA power and politics?

I'm not an EU inclusionist. I think much of the EU is fucking retarded bullshit that everyone should ignore. But I don't pretend my personal attitudes matter worth shit in an open discussion, and dismissing facts because 'they said he was smart' is utterly contrary to the idea of SoD and in this case unnecessary.

[Androsphinx]

The EU is too contradictory, and made so little effort to keep any sort of control on the canon for so long, that SoD is all but impossible. I'm sorry, buth that's just the way it is. Between the minimalists, the lack of communication between authors, the shoddy inclusion of third- and fourth- rate WEG data into more prominent works, the way that the same second-tier characters crop up in places where they should never be, the inconsistent portrayals of space combat and tactics, not to mention the innumerable plot contrivances - it's too much of a mess.

And the only way it can be made to fit together is by making up stories which don't fit with any individual elements. You called Pellaeon a "worthless moron", even though that's inconsistent with his portrayal in both Thrawn series, in the NJO, and in several books in between, because he's been drawn inconsistently enough that if you try to build a consistent portrayal you run into too many problems which cannot be solved without allowing from gross incompetence.

This is, of course, not a million miles away from what Traviss did in the first place. she took a statement referring to "three million units", insisted that it had to be understood in a certain way, and then proceeded to write a series of stories which use that fact, regardless of how unrealistic or ridiculous they look in the wider SW context. Similarly here, in order to explain why Pellaeon became supreme commander, you are forced to resort to nebulous "favours" shown to him by people with whom he'd been at war for twenty years, and hint at "backroom deals and shenanigans" which have no basis in any written source. Pellaeon was not, like Washington or Eisenhower, chosen as Supreme Commander from a tiny pool of officers in a nation which had not fought a major war in decades. He was chosen from a small faction which reviled by many other members of the GFFA, and from any number of competant staff officers, and given command of substantial joint fleet assets in the middle of a life-or-death struggle with the Vong - and there's no indication that it was for any reason other than his competence. Or is it routine to give "worthless morons" command of massed fleets?

If you want to analyse the SW EU, it's ridiculous to assume consistency and continuity - both of which we know, out-of-universe, to be untrue. The only way to deal with these problems is to take them into account on a methodological level - with "unreliable narrator", "inaccurate reporting", and some sort of mechanism which allows plainly wrong accounts - such as the SSD lengths, as a very obvious example - to be ignored. To do what you are trying to do - mesh every little detail together with no regard for the validity of your total evidence with any one element - is absurd.

Let's put it another way: what is your basis for saying that Pellaeon is a "worthless moron"? Is any of it based on his actual description or in-universe actions? Or it is the discontinuity between his actions in different books, combined with plot fiat and inconsistent background?

[VT-16]

This is how Zahn describes Endor in HttE.

Reading that excerpt makes it seem like Thrawn was rolling with his own idea instead of thinking it through. "Fighting like cadets?" Are supposed to believe two Imperial fleets couldn't fight a naval battle without the Emperor figurtively holding their hands? How did these crews ever survive before Endor...

[Androsphinx]

This is how Zahn describes Endor in HttE.

Reading that excerpt makes it seem like Thrawn was rolling with his own idea instead of thinking it through. "Fighting like cadets?" Are supposed to believe two Imperial fleets couldn't fight a naval battle without the Emperor figurtively holding their hands? How did these crews ever survive before Endor...

The point is that the Emperor had been controlling them not just at Endor, and not just for the one battle, but for months or years and all over the galaxy. Or possibly that the sudden withdrawal made them less effective than a normal force would have been. But the phenomenon of force-assistance is tested and verified later in the Thrawn Trilogy. And Thrawn is, according to HttE "possibly the greatest military mind the Empire ever possessed), so this is fairly definitively established.

In any case, the point of the quote was to show that Pellaeon fought on at Endor until the situation was hopeless and an order was given to retreat. The whole idea that Pellaeon abandoned a still-viable battle through an illegal assumption of command is nowhere to be seen.

[Ghost Rider]

This is how Zahn describes Endor in HttE.

Reading that excerpt makes it seem like Thrawn was rolling with his own idea instead of thinking it through. "Fighting like cadets?" Are supposed to believe two Imperial fleets couldn't fight a naval battle without the Emperor figurtively holding their hands? How did these crews ever survive before Endor...

The point is that the Emperor had been controlling them not just at Endor, and not just for the one battle, but for months or years and all over the galaxy. Or possibly that the sudden withdrawal made them less effective than a normal force would have been. But the phenomenon of force-assistance is tested and verified later in the Thrawn Trilogy. And Thrawn is, according to HttE "possibly the greatest military mind the Empire ever possessed), so this is fairly definitively established.

In any case, the point of the quote was to show that Pellaeon fought on at Endor until the situation was hopeless and an order was given to retreat. The whole idea that Pellaeon abandoned a still-viable battle through an illegal assumption of command is nowhere to be seen.

Given that it wasn't the Emperor controlling them at Endor, you're going to prove your blanket statement he's been controlling the Endor/Death Squadron fleets.

[Androsphinx]

Given that it wasn't the Emperor controlling them at Endor, you're going to prove your blanket statement he's been controlling the Endor/Death Squadron fleets.

What do you mean that it wasn't the Emperor controlling them at Endor?

"In a sense, that's true," Thrawn agreed. "The Rebels did indeed fight better, but not because of any special abilities or training. They fought better than the Fleet because the Emperor was dead."...
Thrawn said, his voice abruptly hard. "And it's time you gave up your blindfold and faced the truth, no matter how bitter you find it. You had no real fighting spirit of your own anymore—none of you in the Imperial Fleet did. It was the Emperor's will that drove you; the Emperor's mind that provided you with strength and resolve and efficiency. You were as dependent on that presence as if you were all borg-implanted into a combat computer."

[Ghost Rider]

Given that it wasn't the Emperor controlling them at Endor, you're going to prove your blanket statement he's been controlling the Endor/Death Squadron fleets.

What do you mean that it wasn't the Emperor controlling them at Endor?

"In a sense, that's true," Thrawn agreed. "The Rebels did indeed fight better, but not because of any special abilities or training. They fought better than the Fleet because the Emperor was dead."...
Thrawn said, his voice abruptly hard. "And it's time you gave up your blindfold and faced the truth, no matter how bitter you find it. You had no real fighting spirit of your own anymore—none of you in the Imperial Fleet did. It was the Emperor's will that drove you; the Emperor's mind that provided you with strength and resolve and efficiency. You were as dependent on that presence as if you were all borg-implanted into a combat computer."

Strange that this is from a man who WAS NOT EVEN THERE.

Oh and it's proven by latter EU that Grand Admiral Declann. Oh, wait...you presumed that your statement was immutable before checking everything?

So prove your former fucking statement that the Emperor was fucking controlling the Imperial BEFORE Endor as well.

[Androsphinx]

I gave two possibilites in response to the question "well, what did they do before Endor?". Either that the Emperor was controlling them from well before Endor, as the Thrawn quote indicates; or that it was the sudden withdrawal of the Emperor's influence which had such a negative effect. Which one it is doesn't really matter here, although Thrawn's dialogue seems to indicate the former.

And "Grand Admiral Declann" what? I've read quite a bit of the EU, and don't remember coming across him.

[Androsphinx]

I checked on Wookieepedia. According to a couple of sourcebooks and an MMORPG, Declann was involved in force-controlling the fleet at Endor. It wasn't clear from the article if he was doing so instead of the Emperor, or assisting him. Since Thrawn includes the TIE fighter incompetence which led to the destruction of DSII as a result of the loss of force-control, and Declann didn't die until the explosion (and force-enhancement whilst involved in other things has been demonstrated), it's unclear.

Having Declann being responsible would tend to support the idea that it was the sudden withdrawal of force influence that proved catastrophic, which was VT-16's question.

[000]

Publius, I knew you'd get a kick out of that.



Androsphinx, the description of Endor in TTT is entirely from Pelly's own internal musings. He's had five years to rationalize his cowardice, but, fortunately, we have more accurate depictions of the battle from other sources.

[Androsphinx]

Publius, I knew you'd get a kick out of that.



Androsphinx, the description of Endor in TTT is entirely from Pelly's own internal musings. He's had five years to rationalize his cowardice, but, fortunately, we have more accurate depictions of the battle from other sources.

It's also from Thrawn's own description, who certainly has no interest in covering for Pellaeon. And "more accurate" means "retconned in line with additional material Zahn didn't have". That there are contradictions is hardly suprising, but to use them to accuse Pellaeon of incompetence and cowardice is hardly justified.

[000]

Thrawn would have no interest in believing that his chosen protégé was not, in fact, a bumbling incompetent?

[Androsphinx]

Thrawn would have no interest in believing that his chosen protégé was not, in fact, a bumbling incompetent?

Thrawn chose him in the first place. Which, tangentially, brings us back to another problem with Pellaeon-the-terminally-stupid: why would Thrawn pick him if he was a cowardly, usurping incompetent?

To answer your question (and I'm now going to be away for a couple of days, so I'll have to leave it here), Thrawn is sharply critical of Imperial conduct at Endor, and the only things really at issue here are whether Pellaeon:

1/stood and fought on. This Thrawn agrees with, but says that they did a terrible job - and here he is doubtless going on more than Pellaeon's account (given the precision and details he uses)

2/ was ordered, rather than gave the order, to retreat. Here there seems to be a contradition between HttE and later sources (which, unsuprisingly, give Pellaeon a greater role). But it is Thrawn, as well as Pellaeon, who is narrating events - and what would seem to be the most crucial events (illegal seizure of command, cowardly and unjustified retreat) are not mentioned. We do what we can to fit everything together, but it's silly to do so in a way which makes a nonsense of HttE.

[Publius]

The EU is too contradictory, and made so little effort to keep any sort of control on the canon for so long, that SoD is all but impossible. I'm sorry, buth that's just the way it is. Between the minimalists, the lack of communication between authors, the shoddy inclusion of third- and fourth- rate WEG data into more prominent works, the way that the same second-tier characters crop up in places where they should never be, the inconsistent portrayals of space combat and tactics, not to mention the innumerable plot contrivances - it's too much of a mess.

That is most certainly not the way it is, but rather it is the way you perceive it to be. Your perception is not reality, nor do your limitations limit others. Your opinion is not canonical. The fact that you are unable -- or, more accurately, unwilling -- to do the work to achieve a synthesis or to accepts its implications is irrelevant.

And the only way it can be made to fit together is by making up stories which don't fit with any individual elements. You called Pellaeon a "worthless moron", even though that's inconsistent with his portrayal in both Thrawn series, in the NJO, and in several books in between, because he's been drawn inconsistently enough that if you try to build a consistent portrayal you run into too many problems which cannot be solved without allowing from gross incompetence.

Surely you must realize there is a difference between competence as an administrator and competence as a commander. Pellaeon has been shown on at least four occasions (Merson, Endor, Obroa-skai, Bilbringi) that his immediate reaction to advsersity is to call for a retreat. In the process, he abandoned an entire army and its commanding general to total destruction, abandoned a grand admiral in a battle in which the Empire had its last opportunity to destroy the rebel Alliance's entire fleet, and abandoned one of the Empire's few remaining major shipyards. It is your opinion that these are inconsistent with his characterization, but on what grounds do you propose to disregard them? That they show him in an unflattering light? Considering that the retreats at Endor and Bilbringi were written long before the more flattering portrayals in the New Jedi Order and beyond, oughtn't their portrayal take priority if we're now entertaining thoughts of dismissing evidence willy-nilly?

Furthermore, what basis do you have to insist that he is portrayed as being more than perfunctorily competent? He never had freedom of action in Thrawn's War, seeing that he was merely flag captain and the Supreme Commander showed no hesitation at all in interfering with his command of his ship. He was little more than a superannuated Officer of the Deck. The first fact ever revealed about Gilad Pellaeon was that he was a mere post captain after more than fifty years at space. This fact alone obliterates any pretension that he was anything more than a placeman.

Perhaps you do not realize how abysmally poor his advancement rate was. It certainly does not paint a picture of a competent officer. Compare his career to those of real-life officers of similar service: Brevet Lieutenant General Winfield Scott (53 years in the US Army, 47 years as a general officer, during which time there was no permanent rank higher than major general), General of the Army Douglas MacArthur (51 years in the US Army, 44 years as a general officer), and Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (63 years in the US Navy, 29 years as a flag officer).

There is no difficulty at all in painting a consistent picture of Pellaeon's career and character. You seem to think that only those who are successful in the field are capable of holding larger command. General Dwight Eisenhower never commanded any major unit in combat, yet served with success as Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (in fact, he was on the verge of retirement as a colonel in 1941). Contrariwise, success in the field is no guarantor of fitness for higher command, as demonstrated by General Sir Redvers Buller VC, once dubbed a "God of Battles" for his ferocity and later called "Reverse Buller" for his lackluster performance as an army commander. Pellaeon was clearly a man of administrative ability who was unfit for tactical command; once he achieved a leadership position that no longer required him to actually command in battle, his ability as a leader and his political cunning allowed him to achieve a level of success hitherto precluded by his borderline cowardice.

One is not entitled to dismiss evidence on the basis that it does not flatter one's preconceived prejudices. Evidence can be flexible, and open to interpretation, but appealing to discontinuity where none exists as an excuse to ignore inconvenient truths is both idiosyncratic and unscientific. As John Adams once observed, facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

[Crazedwraith]

Thrawn would have no interest in believing that his chosen protégé was not, in fact, a bumbling incompetent?

Why would he chose Pellaeon as his protege, in the first place, if he was a bumbling incompetent?

[Alexian Cale]

I'll concede the argument, as I lack the patience, focus, time, and ability to successfully argue my case. I'm just in awe that you all don't seem to take into account the statements and opinions of characters who have made decade-spanning careers in direct opposition to Gilad Pellaeon, and -- with all due respect -- they're more familiar with him in combat than any of us here. I submit to you, once again, that Pellaeon was disliked and distrusted amongst the GA personnel, but unanimously respected by them. You've heard Wedge's account; one suspects that they grant him respect because he's deserving of it.

So prove your former fucking statement that the Emperor was fucking controlling the Imperial BEFORE Endor as well.

Well, out of curiosity, didn't the RotJ novelization mention how the Emperor's death fucked everyone up?

[Publius]

Thrawn would have no interest in believing that his chosen protégé was not, in fact, a bumbling incompetent?

Why would he chose Pellaeon as his protege, in the first place, if he was a bumbling incompetent?

Why would a man with more than fifty years of experience as a naval officer be someone's protégé in the first place?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Duology: Last time I owned every single Star Wars book.

Dark Journey by Elaine Cunningham: Last original EU novel I purchased.

Revenge of the Sith: Went to the movie, purchased the novelization. This represents the last time that I spent money on Star Wars, and the last time that I ever will.