Continued from last page....
Neither does it turn their interpretations into some sort of "holy words" nor do they even agree on anything. We know, just for example, that Kevin J. Anderson couldn't even say wether Kun (his creation) or Sidious is the more powerful Sith.
His indecisiveness doesn't undermine the veracity of the numerous sources describing Palpatine as the most powerful Sith. Moreover, despite your lecturing me on the definition of canon, you don't seem to be taking on board what you're saying. Kevin J. Anderson's comments in interviews and emails are not "canon" because they are not part of continuity. He does not say or write them in the context of being given license to make his words canon - in other words, he is not saying or writing those words in the context of being given license to make them a part of continuity. The difference is, Palpatine's quotes are canon, or in other words, they are all written in the context of continuity. Each of those quotes were written whilst the authors were given license to make those words a part of continuity. Anderson's interview/email responses lack that license.
The KotoR writers made sure to let some of the Ancient Sith (and them as a group) shine, while the SW:ToR does the same, with the addition of Vitiate / Valkorion as some sort of "godlike" entity. But because all of that is abstract and partitially not even well known, it makes sense for an author of secondary material to stick with the obvious things, e.g. turning the most well-known "Sith Lord / Master" figure into the "most powerful", without looking much to the left or right. And the way they usually do it [e.g. by a historian in The New Essential Chronology] makes sure that they don't make their ideas "binding" in the grant scheme of things.
I have no idea what you're saying here. It's well understood that continuity isn't perfect, especially when you have hundreds of different authors with different perspectives on things. The idea to make continuity as balanced and uniform across different media and perspectives as possible.
And, yes. It is one of the "most strongly built cases" in SW history. Which makes it so outright pathetic and boring in the first place. The best stance to take for pathetic and boring people either inable or unwilling to think for themselves.
You might very well think that; but that seems to me to be more of a case of confirmation bias than anything else. Yes, that there's a recurring established theme, especially with regards to something as controversial as Force Power is not ideal, but regardless, it exists. You have to accept that. Palpatine's quotes were all written when the authors had the license to make their words canon - to make their words an established part of continuity - and that hasn't changed. There's never been a contradiction to that. Nobody has changed the fact that Palpatine is the most powerful Sith Lord in history. That's what makes it a canon fact. Palpatine is factually the most powerful Sith Lord in history, whatever you think of it or however you like it.
But to be even more funny: It doesn't make any sense to argue it in the context of versus fights, where single abilities, skills or powers could "close" any kind of power gap, rendering the relative positioning of the combatants rather mood.
This is one part of your post I agree on. Sidious being factually more powerful than any other Sith Lord only pertains to the fact that he is more powerful, but that is not an immediate win in of itself. There are various factors involved in a fight, and power is but one of them. Characters have lost to others who are less powerful than them before, and it could well happen again. The problem is that Sidious knows almost every single ability, skill and power, and he's mastered them all to the utmost degree. That's what makes him so hard to beat in threads. That being said, I only referred to Sidious being the most powerful Sith Lord in this thread - I never once referred to it as the basis for him winning this fight. So once again, you're putting words in my mouth.
Now, for our friends who lack the ability to distinguish one thing from another (like you, I'm afraid) - what I just said is arbitrary. My agreement with your stance and my exposition of that is all arbitrary. That is not, in any way, canon, because I did not obtain license to make those words a part of continuity. What is canon, however, is the collection of quotes from sourcebooks that proclaim Sidiou as the most powerful Sith Lord in history, because those were all written under license to make them canon, and they have yet to contradicted or "disestablished".
So let's recap everything in these last two posts:
1. You've gone on a frivolous and irrelevant tirade on my definition of "canon" when I had yet to actually elaborate what my definition of canon was. That was just the first of your attempts to put words in my mouth, and funnily enough, we actually have more or less the same view of what is and isn't canon.
2. In doing so, you've completely neglected to respond to the crux of my argument pertaining to why Sidious' "most powerful" quotes are still valid - not because them being canon makes them irreversible and untouchable, but the fact that they've never been contradicted or altered makes Sidious being the most powerful Sith Lord in history an established, factual and objective principle of SW continuity that has yet to be disputed. As thus, there's nothing that can defy such a consistently established principle except confirmation biases and personal desires to see other characters be more powerful.
3. You've then made another verbose, impertinent diatribe about how "being the most powerful" doesn't automatically let you win a fight. I agree with that, but once again, you put words into mouth - I never once in this thread cited that "being the most powerful" was an automatic win for Sheev.
The saddest part about all this is that you didn't need to feed words into my mouth, because I actually agreed with you on those areas. Nevertheless, you've still failed to address the crux of my argument pertaining to why Sidious' quotes are still valid and should be taken. Most of your post actually wasn't even all that relevant to mine, with excessive feeding of words into my mouth, so it's a wonder that my response was so long.
I apologize if my post was repetitive in many areas, but I was trying to drive home a couple of key concepts that you weren't getting - and really, that's all you need to bring up when discussing why Sidious' quotes are or aren't valid.