The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by mojo » Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:23 pm

i just wanted to use the 'oragahn trail' bit. you know you're my favorite troll ever.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:49 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's quite an odd mental gymnastic here to consider something to have occurred and yet non canonical. If it has occurred, by definition it has to be true. But true to what referential?
As the passage reveals being canonical and having occurred (being true) are not one and the same thing. These are two different properties. Canon is an out of universe concept known only to the audience; it serves to establish whether something was done directly or closely watched by George Lucas. Luke Skywalker has no conception of whether an event is canon or not, to him both his fight with Darth Vader and his dealings with Admiral Thrawn are equally real events.
In other words unless something contradicts canon it happened and this is the only thing that matters when discussing SW using suspension of disbelief, that is from a perspective of an imaginary character like Luke Skywalker.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:00 am

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's quite an odd mental gymnastic here to consider something to have occurred and yet non canonical. If it has occurred, by definition it has to be true. But true to what referential?
As the passage reveals being canonical and having occurred (being true) are not one and the same thing. These are two different properties. Canon is an out of universe concept known only to the audience; it serves to establish whether something was done directly or closely watched by George Lucas. Luke Skywalker has no conception of whether an event is canon or not, to him both his fight with Darth Vader and his dealings with Admiral Thrawn are equally real events.
In other words unless something contradicts canon it happened and this is the only thing that matters when discussing SW using suspension of disbelief, that is from a perspective of an imaginary character like Luke Skywalker.
Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.
Fact is, the notion of canon is of importance to the geeky scholars we are. We use it to filter information.
Just like for sacred scriptures, they simply make the difference between what is true, and what is not not (and therefore unreliable). Therefore, what is said to have happened is obviously a truth, it's a fact. Therefore it is reliable. Hence, it shall be canonical.
That is why Hidalgo's words are best understood from the perspective of the GTC policy (although the T one should now be merged into the G one).
Unless Hidalgo implies that the Holocron policy is poopoo, he has to certainly imply that Lucas' canon is just a much more sacred place where the info is "most reliable" +1.

A letter to mister Hidalgo would surely clarify this.
:( ...just like in the old days.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:17 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.
The way I understand it there is only one canon: the works done or overseen directly by George Lucas. Thrawn stories aren't part of canon but they don't contradict it hence they happened. You seem to still be confusing the terms "canon" and "it happened".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Fact is, the notion of canon is of importance to the geeky scholars we are. We use it to filter information.
This is true. And the mechanism explained by Hidalgo is simple: everything in the canon (overseen directly by Lucas) is true as is everything that doesn't contradict canon. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what confuses you. The filtering logic is pretty straightforward.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by mojo » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:52 am

well, it certainly seems like a fairly straightforward attempt at introducing non-canon material into the debate, i'll give you that.

...

are we really still doing this?

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1220
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Khas » Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:31 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Ah ha! I knew it, SWST was really Kane's sockpuppet all this time test how far a relatively friendly place like this could be pushed without breaking!

But seriously, good to see you back, Kane.
-Mike
But then who or what the hell was KirkSkywalker?

In all seriousness, welcome back, Kane.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:58 am

mojo wrote:well, it certainly seems like a fairly straightforward attempt at introducing non-canon material into the debate, i'll give you that.
If it happened why wouldn't it be a part of the debate?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:27 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.
The way I understand it there is only one canon: the works done or overseen directly by George Lucas. Thrawn stories aren't part of canon but they don't contradict it hence they happened. You seem to still be confusing the terms "canon" and "it happened".
This conclusion you propose happens because Hidalgo talks of only one canon. More precisely, he uses the word canon once, in regards to one specific group of data. We don't even know what he understands by canon exactly. It is quite clear that the more confusing the management of a brand is, the more complicated the staff's declarations become. I've seen that for Warhammer 40000, and we've seen similar issues through RSA's following of the Star Wars and Star Trek canon debates. Those are messes. By no mean they have been easy to understand, hardly straightforward.
Even for Star Wars, RSA came to the conclusion that it was better to run with two policies, and therefore varying definition on canon based on context; the context being the "church". For example, the Christian orthodox church doesn't go with the same scriptures the Roman church does.
My point is that by his very words, Hidalgo could not be claiming that there's just one canon at all times and under all circumstances, because even if a parallel universe existed, as an universe with its own take on SW but which still adheres to the movies and CWS, then the events of the EU he says did happen would still be part of the solid reality of the EU/PU, and be canon here.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Fact is, the notion of canon is of importance to the geeky scholars we are. We use it to filter information.
This is true. And the mechanism explained by Hidalgo is simple: everything in the canon (overseen directly by Lucas) is true as is everything that doesn't contradict canon. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what confuses you. The filtering logic is pretty straightforward.[/quote]

Simply put, if events are officially recorded and validated as having happened, they cannot be anything but canonical. That's the most basic definition of the canon.
So I can't be confusing "canon" and "have happened", because they are, in fact, both one and the same.

- There's canon here. And things that have happened there.
- So what is this canon?
- Stuff made by George Lucas, to be quick.
- But he allows the expanded fluff to exist, right?
- Yes.
- And Hidalgo says that the events in that fluff happened.
- Correct.
- So if they're officially verified and considered true, since, you know, they actually happened, why aren't they canonical?
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- Those events, in the expanded universe, or parallel universe, they're correct if they don't contradict the movies and the Clone Wars series.
- Yup.
- So even if they're subordinated to the movies and the Clone Wars series, they're like an inferior canon, but still true as long as there's no conflict, and pretty damn reliable nonetheless. Only purists of the higher canon would reject the lower canon.
- I guess so.
- But the lower canon composes the whole of the expanded universe market and is considered valid by the very commercial structure Hidalgo works in. He can't be a purist. So what's going on? Why does he speak of only one canon, in such a way that some people think he's saying that there's just one canon which seems to literally exclude EU material?
- I... I don't know, I'm not seeing a real problem here.
- Huh.

Etc.

I find Hidalgo's introduction to be more confusing than anything Chee said in less words, really.

That is why I'm saying that for the sake of believing Hidalgo isn't a complete idiot, he still wrote that text with the Holocron policy in mind, although it didn't come out as elegantly and efficiently as a simple acknowledgement of two policies.

The real problem is George Lucas, not the EU staff. Lucas has always been circling the core of the argument for ages, simply because officially, commercially, he never chose to present the Expanded Universe as a "what if" universe. No matter the number of commentaries from him that may go in this direction (and I believe they do), he never took the risk of breaking the fruit horn by having ALL EU products clearly establish that they're "out of bounds", either with some extra supplementary line under the products' titles going in that direction (at least on books), or by printing some recurring introduction to all EU products, as a summary that would clearly make the consumer understand that this is not the real saga, where nothing of what the consumer is about to read, hear or view is to be considered part of Lucas' own smaller universe.
That's the point. And until that time comes (and it will never come), we will still have to cope with that silly dance.

So, a question now: Aren't there some franchises out there which openly manage one major canon and then alternate realities and which have not commercially suffered of this dual or even triple nature? Perhaps some comics or else?

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:36 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Simply put, if events are officially recorded and validated as having happened, they cannot be anything but canonical. That's the most basic definition of the canon.
So I can't be confusing "canon" and "have happened", because they are, in fact, both one and the same.
This is untrue.
Relevant quotes:
"The most definitive canon of the Star Wars universe is encompassed by feature films and television productions in which George Lucas is involved."

"That said unless something occurs in a canon project to directly contradict a published source it can reliably be said to have occurred."

As you can see "SW canon" and "has happened" are not one and the same. Hidalgo is very clear on the matter. Your confusion seems to stem from your apparent belief that there is only one strict definition of canon that everyone in the world uses in any context which is untrue. Hidalgo explains very clearly what he means.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:58 pm

Mr Oragahn wrote:So, a question now: Aren't there some franchises out there which openly manage one major canon and then alternate realities and which have not commercially suffered of this dual or even triple nature? Perhaps some comics or else?
I assume this is a retorical question on your part since the obvious answer is "yes". That's more or less what the Star Trek franchise has been doing for almost 30 years now with it's EU, even those books and materials written by people who worked directly on the shows and movies. And they don't even put any kind of a disclaimer on their books, like you suggest, since it's been explicitly explained elsewhere.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:03 pm

Khas wrote: But then who or what the hell was KirkSkywalker?
Obviously that was another sockpuppet to test if a Trekkie troll would be given free passes compared to the Warsie one. Like, duh! ;-)
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:34 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Simply put, if events are officially recorded and validated as having happened, they cannot be anything but canonical. That's the most basic definition of the canon.
So I can't be confusing "canon" and "have happened", because they are, in fact, both one and the same.
This is untrue.
Relevant quotes:
"The most definitive canon of the Star Wars universe is encompassed by feature films and television productions in which George Lucas is involved."

"That said unless something occurs in a canon project to directly contradict a published source it can reliably be said to have occurred."

As you can see "SW canon" and "has happened" are not one and the same. Hidalgo is very clear on the matter. Your confusion seems to stem from your apparent belief that there is only one strict definition of canon that everyone in the world uses in any context which is untrue. Hidalgo explains very clearly what he means.
With the problem here that Hidalgo doesn't speak of any "SW canon", as you put it. He says:
The most definitive canon of the Star Wars universe is encompassed by feature films and television productions in which George Lucas is involved.
In fact, this very formulation proves that there is another canon, albeit less definitive (authoritative): it is "the less definitive canon" that is implied here. Hidalgo simply identifies the "most definitive" one and explains what it contains. This is the correct interpretation.
Not only because there cannot be true elements without being part of a canon (as I said above), but also because there's no point specifying that there's a most definitive canon if it actually is the only one and that no other canon, holding reliable data, would ever exist alongside.
This is why this is nothing new to me.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with the idea that there's a parallel universe of some kind. I'm disagreeing with the idea that an in house Star Wars EU author and manager would defend a contradiction, where events that clearly happened are not canonical. Those are two mutually exclusive conditions.
It is clearly the crux of the Holocron, but so vaguely evoked that it can be read in odd ways.






Mike DiCenso wrote:
Mr Oragahn wrote:So, a question now: Aren't there some franchises out there which openly manage one major canon and then alternate realities and which have not commercially suffered of this dual or even triple nature? Perhaps some comics or else?
I assume this is a retorical question on your part since the obvious answer is "yes". That's more or less what the Star Trek franchise has been doing for almost 30 years now with it's EU, even those books and materials written by people who worked directly on the shows and movies. And they don't even put any kind of a disclaimer on their books, like you suggest, since it's been explicitly explained elsewhere.
-Mike
In fact it wasn't rhetorical, and I precisely left the Star Trek case out because it embodies the problem at hand: that EU material is not described as such. It's the same commercial trick: when you buy the book, never does it say that the story you're about to read is not reliable.
I don't know if Paramount has a policy for maintaining some kind of cohesion within its own "EU" series, even if they were to be grouped into different arcs which might collide and be mutually exclusive.

I wanted to know if there's a brand that's clearly selling some extra merchandising products in large quantities, sharing the same importance as the EU does with SW, yet declaring them officially alt-reality on the box.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by mojo » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:14 am

oragahn, where the hell do you get the energy to go back to the canon debate every other day? i know we've got some new quotes to play with here, but ONCE AGAIN, it's clearly possible to interpret them as either for or against multiple canons and whatever. JUST LIKE THE LAST FIVE BILLION TIMES. i'm starting to think lucas, chee, and now this pablo guy are doing this on purpose. DAMN IT.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:52 pm

Yes, it's part of the conspiracy to wear down our defenses, so we become gullible and less cautious when buying merchandising.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print

Post by mojo » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:19 pm

the other day i saw star wars fruit snacks. they were GENERIC MEIJER BRAND. there really is no filter at all regarding what they'll slap the brand on, is there?

Post Reply