Look, little issues like this happen from time to time. As of right now, this is likely a little slip and it contradicts with several other sources that are probably more valid in the eyes of LFL than Del Ray's writers.
In other words, we now have a contradiction on our hands and can only wait to see what happens.
Originally posted by Gideon
DS, though you have my sympathy, Faunus is right. You can't just ignore canon you disapprove of.Then again, there are all sorts of loopholes to exploit in this.
I am NOT ignoring canon, despite Faunus' reading abilities. I'm simply stating that it's not definitive and there are many ways you can interpret their statements.
If they make this conclusively canon, I will respect it because it's law, but I wouldn't understand how someone like Caedus who had virtually no sith training whatsoever, and a few esoteric techniques, could ever be more powerful than someone who could dispense a nearly limitless amount of techniques at his leisure.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
I'm really unclear on seeing how. You can really, really get pedantic and say it doesn't mean he's the most powerful of the Dark Lords of the Sith, but really.
But aren't dark lords of the sith also sith lords? (as Mace calls Palpatine "A Sith lord" in ROTS) Does anyone have access to the summary for Omen, I'm having trouble locating it.
Sure.
For example, the Hand of Thrawn duology's publisher's statement says that "the New Republic faces its greatest [foe/challenge/enemy/threat] yet -- a dead Imperial warlord", in reference to Grand Admiral Thrawn. Though it is an out of universe source, the idea that in death Thrawn could be a greater enemy than the likes of Ysanne Isard, Sate Pestage, Warlord Zsinj, the Ssi-Ruuk, the Yevetha, the Disciples of Ragnos, Gilad Pellaeon, or Palpatine himself is simply implausible.
Not to mention, of course, that the line doesn't mention a historical context and that there were other so-called 'Sith' alive at the time. One could make an argument that the line was in context only. After all, the official website and the Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia reference Yoda and Palpatine as "the most powerful practitioners of the Force's light and dark sides" respectively.
Originally posted by GideonIndeed. And no one should assume that Caedus being the most powerful of Sith Lords automatically makes him the greatest combatant or master of the Force among them.
DS, though you have my sympathy, Faunus is right. You can't just ignore canon you disapprove of.Then again, there are all sorts of loopholes to exploit in this.
Originally posted by LightsnakeThere's no contradiction, LS.
Look, little issues like this happen from time to time. As of right now, this is likely a little slip and it contradicts with several other sources that are probably more valid in the eyes of LFL than Del Ray's writers.In other words, we now have a contradiction on our hands and can only wait to see what happens.
Originally posted by Darth SexyThis makes no sense whatsoever, but I lol'd anyway.
I am NOT ignoring canon, despite Faunus' reading abilities.
Actually, I never even said you were ignoring canon.
I wouldn't understand how someone like Caedus who had virtually no sith training whatsoever, and a few esoteric techniques, could ever be more powerful than someone who could dispense a nearly limitless amount of techniques at his leisure.It's rather simple; Caedus had greater potential in the Force. Anakin Skywalker was noted by Mace Windu to have raw power on the level of Yoda; it could easily be true, but it doesn't really change anything. Three years later, Yoda would still curbstomp Anakin in any contest of the Force.
Originally posted by Publius II
Indeed. And no one should assume that Caedus being the most powerful of Sith Lords automatically makes him the greatest combatant or master of the Force among them.
There's no contradiction, LS.
It's rather simple; Caedus had greater potential in the Force. Anakin Skywalker was noted by Mace Windu to have raw power on the level of Yoda; it could easily be true, but it doesn't really change anything. Three years later, Yoda would still curbstomp Anakin in any contest of the Force.
Think it's just potential then?
And, really, power can be ambiguous; I refer not to Janus's patented "LOLZ IT IS MILITARY OR POLITICAL POWAH!!1!" but the difference between realized power and potential power. Anakin Skywalker has been regarded by many sources to be among (and the) most powerful Jedi that the Order has ever seen. Yet, for the most part, his command of the Force is lackluster -- he couldn't even pry open a door in Labyrinth of Evil -- requiring his clone commandos to blow it open. That is startling given his connection to the Force. You can pin it on psychology or on the simple fact that Skywalker was never a scholar; but you saw what happened when you pit him against the likes of Count Dooku, whose potential power is miles behind Anakin's -- the Count's superiority in command of the Force allowed him to dominate Skywalker.
Solo's title of "most powerful" could even simply be reference to potential.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
Of course it's also possible we can just apply this to just living Sith Lords. Anyone have issues with him being more powerful than Krayt and Wyyrlok I?
This is my point. "Most powerful of the sith lords" can mean most powerful of the living sith lords, but of course faunus is going to be quick as hell to label it conclusive for all time.
Originally posted by Darth SexyThis is my point; you're simply going to try and nitpick until you find an interpretation that suits your liking.
This is my point. "Most powerful of the sith lords" can mean most powerful of the living sith lords, but of course faunus is going to be quick as hell to label it conclusive for all time.
And again with the lies. I didn't say it was "conclusive for all time." In fact, I was the first person in this thread to point this out:
[...]there could be multiple interpretations of it.
Originally posted by Publius II
This is my point; you're simply going to try and nitpick until you find an interpretation that suits your liking.And again with the lies. I didn't say it was "conclusive for all time." In fact, I was the first person in this thread to point this out:
I'm taking the quote at face value and assuming the most obvious meaning. If others want to try and find loopholes in it, then be my guest.
I am "nitpicking" because it's ambiguous at best. When it said Sidious is "The most powerful sith lord in history", THAT is conclusive, and I have right to nitpick. This ISNT, so I CAN.
Personally, I don't find this sort of discussion to be a demonstration of nitpicking. The simple fact of the matter is that there is little evidence to corroborate the idea that Darth Caedus was greater than any of his predecessors in terms of actualized power, and that's being generous! Were we to be completely fair, I'd have to say that there is absolutely nothing that corroborates it. I could point out the numerous displays of Caedus's incompetence and weakness in both the Force and ability, but you're all aware of that. The out-of-universe publisher's summary for Invincible stated that Caedus's power surpassed "even those of his grandfather, Darth Vader," making a direct implication that that was the extent of his power; and we're all aware that there have been a handful of Jedi and Sith whose power exceed that of Vader's own. Not to mention that, as Darth Sexy and I have both pointed out, there were other so-called Sith Lords alive and operating at the time of Caedus's rise to power. And, lastly, consider one of the examples I provided of the errors committed by a publisher's summary: is Grand Admiral Thrawn, dead over a decade, ever faced?
According to the promotion: he is. But the fact remains that such an accolade is simply and thoroughly implausible.