StarWarsStarTrek wrote:To bump this thread, as some assertions of the 1.5 megaton figure have popped up again.
Again, that doesn't work. Mos Eisly is the only town we see in Star Wars. Therefore, that would be our benchmark
This is stupid logic. If you saw Star Trek for the first time and the first human you see is Picard, who is bald, are you going to assume that, because of this,
all humans in Star Trek are bald until you see any more?
No, since humans are very different from a town. We also know that humans aren't like that. Now if we saw an alien that was bald that we've never seen before--then yeah, I would consider it a possibility that they might not grow hair on their head. There's nothing wrong with that assumption.
Just like Picard, since I would already know that humans aren't bald (and in fact he isn't entirely bald, but balding suggesting that he at one time had hair), we would look at his personality, ethics, and outlook. While no doubt there would be a variation to his beliefs, I would consider them to be fairly widespread amongst his culture, similar to how most Christians have the same basic beliefs, though we all vary on what exactly we believe.
So yes, assuming that Mos Eisly, which is one of the largest towns we've seen in Star Wars is a good basis for this calculation is a fair argument. Of course I would have pointed out that since an American author wrote the book to address people who have very never likely read a Star Wars book before (since assumption that someone's read the series before and therefore requiring no explanation is really bad form), it would require that we assume that the author was referring to a small American town.
The lower end figures would make 2046 seem overly generous in comparison to what I've found. Since some towns here in America can take five minutes to drive through. Literally.
This method of approach is rarely right and goes in the face of logical reasoning. Mos Eisley is in a backwater planet by Star Wars and, in some ways, even our standards. Therefore, logically a "1st planet" Star Wars town would be larger. Are you trying to deny that a small town in Alderaan (before it blew up) would be larger than Mos Eisley?
So what? Just because it's a backwater town doesn't suddenly make it less of a town. In fact, that would perfectly fit the description since we're talking about a small town--ie, an irrelevant and low end town as opposed to a shiny new one quickly scaling to becoming a city.
The quote was in the context of Coruscant.
No it wasn't, so stop pretending it was. Simply because the story takes place on Coruscant does not mean that the author is referencing the planet when he's speaking. Otherwise, if someone said "As the villagers looked up, the ships hurled firepower capable of vaporizing cities at each other" on a planet with only villages, then your argument would require that we assume that they must be referring to the villages because that's the context of the story.
However, the context of the sentence is not even a part of Star Wars. Remember, this is the author describing something to the reader. Unless you have proof that the author clearly indicated a Star Wars town before the quote, then your argument is null since any self respecting author would never try to describe something their audience cannot understand. However, every American (...well, most) understands what people mean by 'a small town'. It is a town that's on the smaller end.
Although there are no towns in Coruscant, any towns would be in the context of the inhabitants of Coruscant, who would be thinking of towns in well known planets, not a random backwater like Tatooine.
And therefore you defeat your argument right there. Not only are you making the mistake that this is somehow first person (because it's not, it's third person, which means that the author is directly describing it to the reader. Only a first person method would allow for such a claim--and even then it would require quantification), but you also outright admitted that Coruscant has no towns. Well, if it has no towns, then how could it contextually be of Corsucant? Wouldn't it be of other towns?
You know, like Mos Eisly?
Your assertion that Mos Eisley is the size of a small town in a standard Star Wars planet because...it's the only town we see (in G canon; C canon describes towns as having millions of people)! And if you went to Beijing for the first time and the first person you saw at the checkin station was a five year old, are you to conclude, that all people beyond that gate are five year olds?
Jesus Christ, how can you make arguments that retarded? Of course no one would conclude that the city is filled with five year olds. Why? Because we all know that five year olds are incapable of taking care of themselves and therefore adults must be present. You are attempting to mix two different types of situations here. In the case of Mos Eisly, WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT MANY OTHER NAMED TOWNS IN STAR WARS, THEREFORE WE MUST TAKE THAT AS AN AVERAGE SIMPLY BASED UPON OUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. In the case of the child or Picard or whatever you want to try and abuse next, we already know that these are not the average, but the two extremes of the process of life. Ie, our level of knowledge is different than that of the towns in Star Wars.
The other major flaw is that even if one were to accept this argument, then why must it be higher? Because you say so? Why then can't we use smaller towns as justification for lower yield justifications? Since we have no real indication either way what is a small or large town in Star Wars, then logically we have to take into account that smaller ones exist just as likely as larger ones.
You are also not understanding what the 4th wall is. You claim that writers write in context. In non fiction and some fiction, yes. But not in Star Wars. Do you ever read a Star Wars author writing "the X wing looked much like F22's back on Earth"? No.
Jesus fucking Christ...
Okay, first, you wouldn't want to. Second most people know what an X-Wing is. In fact, more people probably know what an X-Wing is world wide than they know what an F22 looks like. If anything, one might use the former to describe the later. If it weren't so silly. Third, this is simply nitpicking one rule of writing and then pretending it applies to everything. It does not. It all depends upon the context of the writing. In this case, the author to my knowledge has not described a Star Wars town before the statement was made--if ever. Nor is it first person so you can't use the claim that the character was speaking from their point of view because they weren't.
This isn't breaking the fourth wall. If you must, think of it as someone speaking to you with your eyes closed. They're going to tell you things that your brain can latch onto. Who the fuck can latch onto something whose entire meaning would be so alien from your own that to describe it as such would be meaningless without additional, unmentioned context? No one, because no such thing has been established in your mind. Therefore, the default assumption is what you know of as a town. Since the writer is American, that would probably be an American town, which vary all over the scale from my understanding.
Every writer with even an ounce of intellect knows this. Even Stepheny fucking Myers would be able to grasp such a simple concept. How it evades you is beyond me.
Earth is never mentioned in any Star Wars novel, nor is the Milky Way galaxy. Your claim that Star Wars authors write in context is simply wrong; with the exception of the title pages, about the author sections and copyright, Star Wars novels and reference guides pretend that our world doesn't exist. Star Wars never breaks the fourth wall.
Alright, find me one writer who would write in the way that makes it more difficult for the audience to understand by approaching it from a contextual viewpoint that they leave out from the audience.
Here's a hint; one of the critical flaws in the prequel writing was that shit was never explained. This left many audiences confused because they didn't understand the reasoning or meaning behind what of half was said on screen. This is basic writing 101; connect with the audience.
Darkstar assumes that "vaporize a small town" is figurative...and assigns a random benchmark for how much damage is needed for "figurative vaporization". How does darkstar know that figurative vaporization is hiroshima level, and not more? Why is he using a figurative quote to set an upper limit?
Because humans speak figuratively as a rule. We are not exact creatures by nature. Darkstar is correct in his understanding of the passage. If they meant it literally, the author would have assigned a greater sense of destruction than 'vaporization'. Even more impressive is that 2046 cited actual literature sources regarding real life events figuratively referred to as vaporization.
He also calculates the energy needed...to vaporize wood and human flesh. Apparently, darkstar thinks that Star Wars small towns are all made out of wood, and that there are no, you know, metal structures there.
He already addressed on the first page. This is what we mean when you ignore people's arguments. You don't address them or even claim that they're wrong--you simply pretend that they don't exist. It's really obvious and it's absolutely pathetic.
