Originally posted by Autokrat
Luke's rooting himself to the point of a supermassive black hole being unable to move him would be mind blowing. These are the things that hold galaxies together.
I didn't write the book. If there is an issue with what Denning wrote, take it up with him. I thought it was ridiculous when Galen redirected a star destroyer. My opinion of what is written didn't change the facts to make it not so though.
Right now, canon fact that Luke did root himself in such a way that the black hole at the center of the galaxy couldn't unroot him.
Whether or not its a one time thing is completely immaterial. It happened.
Originally posted by truejedi
I didn't write the book. If there is an issue with what Denning wrote, take it up with him. I thought it was ridiculous when Galen redirected a star destroyer. My opinion of what is written didn't change the facts to make it not so though.Right now, canon fact that Luke did root himself in such a way that the black hole at the center of the galaxy couldn't unroot him.
Whether or not its a one time thing is completely immaterial. It happened.
Hey I wasn't arguing against you. I was just noting how absurd the feat is.
Its more a muse on how much idiot Denning is.
Originally posted by truejedi
DG: You dismiss the Dovin basil because "Luke's TK has never been shown to be on such a high level.So I say: Wait, in DN, it is also referenced as being that high.
You reply: That can't be correct, because "Luke's TK has never been shown to be on such a high level.
it doesn't make sense.
The problem is that there are plenty of instances when Luke has failed to ever demonstrate power approaching anywhere near that level, yet it was needed. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that he can't, and those previous to statements are being misunderstood.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
The problem is that there are plenty of instances when Luke has failed to ever demonstrate power approaching anywhere near that level, yet it was needed. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that he can't, and those previous to statements are being misunderstood.
but it is fact that he did, in DN. You ignoring it doesn't change that it happened.
ROTS sidious killed 3 jedi masters in 2 seconds, but never displays that level of profieciency ever again. Can I say it never happened? I cannot.
That is the kind of argument you are making. You are trying to call canon fact unlikely, and therefore impossible, completely ignoring that it is canon fact.
Originally posted by truejedi
but it is fact that he did, in DN. You ignoring it doesn't change that it happened.ROTS sidious killed 3 jedi masters in 2 seconds, but never displays that level of profieciency ever again. Can I say it never happened? I cannot.
That is the kind of argument you are making. You are trying to call canon fact unlikely, and therefore impossible, completely ignoring that it is canon fact.
He absolutely did not. Raynar was unable to move him. That is all that was shown. Luke didn't go to the black hole and resist being moved by it. Sidious, on the other hand, actually did kill three Masters no sweat.
NemesisInertial dampeners.
On top of this we have the fantasy elements of the black holes. When they are activated as a method of propulsion, the effects are limited to a single coralskipper. In Star Wars dogfights the fighters tend to become mixed up in a sort of scrum. Would a propulsion system that interferes with the trajectory of your allies be carried into battle? It seems unlikely. Also, I would be hard pressed to find an example of an Alliance ship being pulled by the singularity. A black hole (without any fantasy overlay) would pull all ships around it, not just the one that generated it.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
He absolutely did not. Raynar was unable to move him. That is all that was shown. Luke didn't go to the black hole and resist being moved by it. Sidious, on the other hand, actually did kill three Masters no sweat.
It irks me when someone tries to nit pick the author's statements. Luke doesn't have to go to a black hole for the point to be proven. The author's statement about a black hole not being able to move him isn't something that can get debated.
Furthermore, you're using double standards. You're saying that A can't possibly happen because character X wasn't shown to do anything on that level on a consistent basis, but you're ignoring the fact that Character Y wasn't shown to do B on a consistent basis either.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Explain how it was a "metaphor". I'm wondering if you know what a metaphor is. Also, explain how it's hyperbole.
Sorry, metaphor was the wrong word. But it could very well be a hyperbole. To not be moved by a supermassive blackhole is a little far fetched. Why did Luke get knocked back by the shockwave of Force Lightning in FOTJ: Outcast then? If he really can defy the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, then he should be able to move planets at a whim.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Why did Luke get knocked back by the shockwave of Force Lightning in FOTJ: Outcast then?
In Backslash, Luke pins himself to the side of a cliff in such a way that a hurricane cannot dislodge him. Not the same, but showing the same technique.
Glentract.
The author said that the black hole couldn't move him. Whether or not it actually tried to is irrelevant. Believe it or not, Star Wars author's are higher canon than an outside opinion of "what makes sense".
This is a pointless discussion. If you are going to claim your interpretation of canon is higher than that of the author's, the entire forum will go to pot.
TJ
but it is fact that he did, in DN. You ignoring it doesn't change that it happened.
?
Glentract said that there are "plenty of instances" in which Luke has failed to demonstrate [the same] level of power that he did during the Dark Nest Crisis and he is absolutely correct.
TJ
ROTS sidious killed 3 jedi masters in 2 seconds, but never displays that level of profieciency ever again. Can I say it never happened? I cannot.
This analogy doesn't work at all. We see Sidious dismember three Jedi Masters in a few seconds; we are not told that he could. Glentract's entire point is that we do not see Luke resist the inexorable force of the galaxy's central black hole and this, coupled with the fact that Luke does not consistently demonstrate this level of power, leads Glentract to believe that the statement was one of hyperbole and gross exaggeration.
TJ
That is the kind of argument you are making. You are trying to call canon fact unlikely, and therefore impossible, completely ignoring that it is canon fact.
Star Wars, even the G-canon movies, are abundant with examples of exaggeration and hyperbole. In the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Anakin, at various points, muses how his power is greater than any Jedi in the galaxy, and that he's more than a match for all of the Council members. In the movie, he mentions how he is more powerful than Palpatine and can overthrow him.
Are these things true? No. Because Anakin does not demonstrate the level of ability to support such claims.
TJ
In Backslash, Luke pins himself to the side of a cliff in such a way that a hurricane cannot dislodge him. Not the same, but showing the same technique.
The same "technique" is telekinesis. As Glentract asks, where is this all powerful display of the Force when Luke needs it? It would have come in handy against Lumiya (all three times), against Caedus, against the Hidden One, against the Sith strike team, against anyone?
The fact that the very same authors do not provide this consistency suggests that the feat is either an exaggeration or it is limited in some fashion.
The fact that the very same authors do not provide this consistency suggests that the feat is either an exaggeration or it is limited in some fashion.
The argument of "oh he never did it again so the first time MUST have been an exaggeration" is a flawed one.
TJ
The author said that the black hole couldn't move him. Whether or not it actually tried to is irrelevant. Believe it or not, Star Wars author's are higher canon than an outside opinion of "what makes sense".
I suppose, in order for this debate to continue, you need to be asked one question: do you believe in the existence of exaggeration or hyperbole in literature?
Originally posted by Gideon
I suppose, in order for this debate to continue, you need to be asked one question: do you believe in the existence of exaggeration or hyperbole in literature?
The obvious answer to this question is that TJ (being an intelligent and rational person) is aware of the existence of exaggeration and hyperbole and as such this is the wrong question to ask and is in fact completely irrelevant. In fact, its almost a cleverly designed complex question. There is an assumption in your question that if TJ believed in hyperbole and exaggeration, then he would not be defending the position that Luke's feat is genuine.
The proper question to ask is this:
Do you believe that the section about Luke being unmoved by a supermassive black hole is hyperbole?
Given that none of TJ's arguments seem to support a "yes" answer to that question. The closest thing you could expect is a "maybe."
Autokrat
The obvious answer to this question is that TJ (being an intelligent and rational person) is aware of the existence of exaggeration and hyperbole and as such this is the wrong question to ask and is in fact completely irrelevant. In fact, its almost a cleverly designed complex question. There is an assumption in your question that if TJ believed in hyperbole and exaggeration, then he would not be defending the position that Luke's feat is genuine.The proper question to ask is this:
Do you believe that the section about Luke being unmoved by a supermassive black hole is hyperbole?
Given that none of TJ's arguments seem to support a "yes" answer to that question. The closest thing you could expect is a "maybe."
TJ, responding to Glentract on this very issue
It[the statement]s listed as fact, just like any other quote from OOU narrators.
That would answer your question. In fact, your question is the one that this debate entirely concerns and he clearly believes that this is not the case.
In order to truly begin this debate, we need to ascertain if (a.) TJ is aware of the existence of exaggeration and hyperbole in literature, (b.) TJ is aware that Star Wars novels use those mechanisms, (c.) TJ is aware that there is a difference between remotely unsubstantiated claims (Luke and the black hole) and those which have been explored (Sidious and his power status).
Originally posted by Gideon
That would answer your question. In fact, your question is the one that this debate entirely concerns and he clearly believes that this is not the case.In order to truly begin this debate, we need to ascertain if (a.) TJ is aware of the existence of exaggeration and hyperbole in literature, (b.) TJ is aware that Star Wars novels use those mechanisms, (c.) TJ is aware that there is a difference between remotely unsubstantiated claims (Luke and the black hole) and those which have been explored (Sidious and his power status).
If you are going to take the statement as hyperbole (which would in fact make much more sense given how ridiculous the feat is) then consider this:
There are 262,800 hours in thirty years (365 x 24 = 8760, 8760 x 30 = 262,800). If Sidious took one of those sources from (the million or whatever worlds he plundered for Force knowledge, assuming one "source" per planet) and learned one source per hour, there would not be enough time to learn all million of them.
Would you consider the million worlds statement to be hyperbole? I already know you don't since we've discussed this on MSN, but think about it again. If you accept that hyperbole can be used in literature by an omniscient narrator (?) then you have to apply that standard across the board.