In 2012, a quote was worth virtually nothing without tangible showcase to support it. Fast forward 5 years, and a tangible showcase is worth virtually nothing without a quote to support it. In the past, I've always been in support of accolades being more integrated into Star Wars discussions, even despite the fact that characters I generally champion (i.e. Revan) are generally hurt by them, not helped (via limitations established by Darth Plagueis, Yoda, and Palpatine). However, I've now observed that there is such an emphasis on accolades that proper debate and discussion is virtually impossible. However, this blog isn't meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, for all I find we're all to blame for this (hell, just a couple months ago I was one of the chief advocates of this policy).
As it stands, a quote is absolute. If it is stated, then it is law.
However, after further consideration, I'm not sure why for two reasons.
For one, why are some quotes embraced fully, but others ignored (or, frankly, avoided)? For example, if the policy for Star Wars quotes was fully employed by members here, Palpatine as of Dark Empire is factually more powerful than the Son (and Palpatine as of Revenge of the Sith is more powerful than Abeloth). I expect everyone who fully adheres to the "if it is stated, then it is fact" policy to accept this. Also, other Star Wars publications, such as Head-to-Head, which is not only canon but written by the head of Star Wars canon, is laughed at. Why? This also applies to all non-gaming Star Wars publications that features statistics for characters. While gameplay stats, such as from roleplaying sourcebooks, can be dismissed due to quotes via Leland Chee, these stats cannot. It is canonical, as per the policy most members have here, that Darth Vader is a better fighter than RotJ Palpatine. Not only is this stated, but these stats can consistently be traced across numerous sources. It is also canonical fact that Palpatine has a weaker lightsaber defense than Dooku, that Qui-Gon would offer more to a battle than Yoda, etc. So I ask: why are statements from some sources accepted while others dismissed, despite them all equally being C-Canon?
Don't answer, just accept that for all continuing the current policy, I expect and demand all to embrace all the "facts" I mentioned above (and all others).
Secondly, it's the obvious fact that Star Wars publications are changing and flawed. If Pablo Hidalgo is writing in published works that Kit Fisto is defeating Darth Maul in a fight, then I'm not sure why we can't accept the fact that no source is perfect. Statements will be made that don't reflect the actual Star Wars continuity. In particular, some sources will have certain opinions of characters that are inconsistent with the majority of Star Wars sources. Nevertheless, quotes are cherry-picked from these sources. For example one, take the recent Scholastic publication that stated that Darth Vader was more powerful than Anakin Skywalker. Debaters neglect the fact that said source regards Anakin Skywalker only as powerful and skilled as Obi-Wan Kenobi. Thus, the claim that Darth Vader is more powerful than Anakin Skywalker is dismissed when recognizing where the source actually holds Anakin Skywalker. For example two, take Fact Files' opinion of Mace Windu. As per Fact Files, Mace Windu is as powerful in the Force as Yoda - something that is reaffirmed in both the 2003 and even the currently running publication. Members ignore this, but nonetheless cite Mace Windu's status as the second most powerful Jedi unquestioned. Of course the source would put Mace Windu as the second greatest if they regard him as on par with Yoda. However, given that Mace Windu isn't on par with Yoda, where Mace Windu actually ranks in the history of the Jedi is still completely up for debate in logical minds (I've contacted the publisher on this matter as well, by the way). On a side note, the source states that Mace Windu had to use "all his skills" to defeat Asajj Ventress. Many members dismiss this one way or another, but the quote is explicit and there is nothing directly contradicting it. It's, again, one of those quotes where everyone pretends to ignore but it's nonetheless still there.
Instead, I truly do believe that the important of quotes should be dialed back a step and in-line with tangible showcases. The current way of discussion inherently discourages debate in favor of blindly accepting quotes made decades ago by publishers that do not have even half of the Star Wars knowledge that most of us have. We're not even debaters anymore - just people who read quotes. It's just boring and I, at the very least, will no longer be adhering to the generally accepted policy. I don't think members realize that there has never been any official statement from Star Wars declaring any publication without error and biblical. Nor do I think any member would want to see if publishers who wrote sources decades ago would confirm that their quotes still adhere to Star Wars canon to this day (since we all know they would laugh and say obviously not).
Now, I already have a mental list of who will agree with me on this and who won't (and of those who won't, those who will take jabs at me personally), so let's see.
__________________ "There is only Revan. Only he can shape this galaxy as it is meant to be shaped."
Last edited by Jaggarath on Feb 27th, 2017 at 05:35 AM
Anyway, I actually agree with this. However, is the Fact File quote on Mace being equal to Yoda from Fact File 11? If it's from another issue, it's not necessarily binding. The Fact Files and sources of that type have numerous authors and do contradict each other from time to time. They're not really consistent in that sense. It makes more sense to treat each Fact File as a separate source.
Registered: Jun 2016
Location: The Throne of the Sheevites
If there is a contradiction in the source material, then I'd say said quote can be dismissed (i.e. Dooku stalemating Yoda in a telekinetic battle).
However, if a quote is presented, with nothing to contradict it, then it's valid, I'd say (i.e. Darth Plagueis being > Vitiate/Valkorion. Most would immediately bring up Vitiate's - in their minds - better feats, but fail to realize that Plagueis' upper limit has never been established by his feats, so one can't baselessly claim Vitiate's feats would be out of Plagueis' range. Accoridng to the quote, they're not, and that's that).
To be accurate, it says his powers existed "beyond the domain of the Sith Lords" not just any one particular Sith. As a Sith Lord, Palpatine's power remained in that domain up until his death, and though it could be argued he too moved outside that domain post-ROTJ, no DE source, to my knowledge, reaffirms his status as the most powerful dark sider regardless.
Where Is The Line Drawn?
Feb 27th, 2017 05:27 AM
