Originally posted by Advent
Then do it rather than parade around like a coxcomb.
Originally posted by Advent
Troll.
Someone's getting a little testy.
It's just that every single time we talk anymore, you evade. I'm not going to argue with you if that's all you plan on doing.
And what's up? You've never been this hypocritical or easy to beat.
😍
Originally posted by Advent
So, the authors have to follow guidelines. The authors are writing about history, meaning when they write down events, actions, etc. this is history. The interpretation of characters comes into play when the author decides to make the character do one thing or react a certain way in a situation.
Those interpretations would be perfectly acceptable canon. The events, the demonstrated abilities, etc. The questionable materials would be those windows like "most powrful evar" that are, in fact, "foggy".
How are these foggy while events are not, as the author also chooses what events there are. And where does it say quotes are foggy while events are not.
Contrary to Gideon's post, he doesn't need to specifically reference quotes. We already know that no character is looked to as being the definitive, must-be "most powrful evar" since Leland Chee confirmed there are no power charts of the mythos as a whole and it's possible for a Sith to become [past or future] more powerful than Sidious, for example.
Except everything we know about Coleman Trebor suggests otherwise. Meaning that author is likely writing an Infinity. Coleman Trebor has established canon behind him. He has a history and actions. An author making him "more powerful than Luke" wouldn't make sense with the continuity and what we know about him and Luke.
Originally posted by ares834
[B]But who decides the history they are writing down hmm? Oh yeah the authors. 😐 Oh and where does it say that "The interpretation of characters comes into play when the author decides to make the character do one thing or react a certain way in a situation"? I don't see that anywhere... If we followed your logic than Mace took down the entire army of droid on Dantoine, luckily enough "Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." How do we decide which is abstract and contain only a nugget of truth or those that tell the entire truth? I guess we will never know.
We know that the cartoon Clone Wars has exaggerated Jedi abilities and powers, this is confirmed by Leland Chee. So, my logic would not support that at all. What you're trying to say doesn't have to be inclusive with my argument, which is where you are going wrong.
How are these foggy while events are not as the author also chooses what events there are. And where does it say these are foggy while events are not.
Events are history. Being called "the most powrful evar" is _______?
No power charts eh. Than is Bandan as dangerous a sith lord as Sidious. Oh and apparently Anakin doesn't have the highest potential ever.
Let's see: if we accept the premise that events, abilities, and otherwise are canon, then -without a power chart- we can determine that Bandon is not as "dangerous" as Sidious. Again, read carefully: no power charts over the entire mythos.
But it would make sense as all the established canon behind him is very "foggy".
Except there's nothing foggy about it and now we're engaging in a circular discussion.
Originally posted by Advent
Let's see: if we accept the premise that events, abilities, and otherwise are canon, then -without a power chart- we can determine that Bandon is not as "dangerous" as Sidious. Again, read carefully: no power charts over the entire mythos.[/b]
Alas, that's just the problem. According to Mr. Cerasi, author interpretations -- which are apparently fallible and untrustworthy -- also extend to interpretation of events, which include powers and abilities.
Why should we accept those as canon? They are obviously prone to hyperbole and ambiguity, just like those pesky quotes.
Originally posted by Advent
So we just toss everything Chris Cerasi says out the window? What are we supposed to make of it then. Instead of hearing my proposals and attempting to shoot them down without offering any alternatives, care to provide one of your own explanations?
Originally posted by Advent
So we just toss everything Chris Cerasi says out the window?
Why not? After all, it's just a quote. 😉
And you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to take anything the man says and shove it out a window; I am, in fact, attempting to raise it as the standard.
The truth of the matter is that his statements render all hypothetical versus matches completely irrelevant. We can't trust the quotes, we can't trust the source material.
Or, I suppose, we could go renegade and, since he's not George Lucas, disregard his opinion.
Don't we do that with Nick Gillard?
What are we supposed to make of it then. Instead of hearing my proposals and attempting to shoot them down without offering any alternatives, care to provide one of your own explanations?
This is your mess, sweetheart. I'm just playing skeptic. Looking at all the angles, just in case you miss something.
Originally posted by ares834
The only other option is to not trust Chris and have everything in all canon sources be canon as long as it does not contradict with another canon source.
I'm going to have to stop you, right here, and speak up for Advent.
See, this is the way things work with a certain group at KMC: we all have preferences. Some characters we like better than others. So when a particular statement puts a character that we don't like in a state of relative awesomeness, we do what we can to tear it down.
Take me, for example. See, I'm considered a Sidious fanboy. So when I found the quote in the Official Star Wars Encyclopedia that said Exar Kun "was the most powerful of Sith Lords," I immediately hid it and did not bring it up ever again until just now --
Oh, wait.
No I didn't.
Your methodology makes sense. We objectively weigh canon and, with suspension of disbelief, assume that quotes and events aren't in place to simply screw up the continuity. And we try to make it fit into a bigger picture.
That's what I've been doing. I think Karen Traviss's line that the GAR consists of three million clones is stupid, but there are ways to incorporate into a bigger picture.
It's about not condemning characters we don't like or trying to get rid of statements we don't like.
AdventSome people could learn a thing or two from you.
😉
Originally posted by Elite Hunter
@LSAll true points, i wish i had my copy of Inferno right now, but I wont until later tonight/tomorrow.
Take your time.
Sidenote:
Advent, putting Revy as your avatar makes arguing against you harder. Can you change it to someone less awesome so I can be fully vitriolic?
Originally posted by Gideon
Why not? After all, it's just a quote. 😉
🙄
And you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to take anything the man says and shove it out a window; I am, in fact, attempting to raise it as the standard.The truth of the matter is that his statements render all hypothetical versus matches completely irrelevant. We can't trust the quotes, we can't trust the source material.
Or, I suppose, we could go renegade and, since he's not George Lucas, disregard his opinion.
Don't we do that with Nick Gillard?
I find it rather amusing, that you have still not learned to make a difference between character quotes, quotes from the narrator, quotes from secondary source material, or quotes coming from LFL officials. There is a difference and, once you have figured it out - provided that will ever happen - you will also know why people call you a "Sidious fanboy".
This is your mess, sweetheart. I'm just playing skeptic. Looking at all the angles, just in case you miss something.
No. You're playing sophist here, and you're not even doing it good. Leave that to the pros (e.g. myself).