Originally posted by Beniboybling
Mmm, so to be clear Kyp may have been strong enough to bridge the gap across Kun<Vitiate<Plagueis<ROTS/ROTJ Palpatine<DE Palpatine, and his Dark Empire in addition as well."Feeble" lmao. 😂
My god, you're dense.
Do I really have to explain this in an even simpler manner for you?
Those quotes are completely irrelevant to JA Kun and his theoretical powers upon return.
Anyway the inferences from the blurb are quite interesting:
A brilliant student delves dangerously into the dark side of the Force and unleashes the spirit of an ancient master of the evil order that warped Darth Vader himself. Working together, they may become an enemy greater than the New Republic has ever fought... more powerful than even a Jedi Master can face.The back cover also provides further context:
A brilliant young student, Kyp Durron, delves dangerously into the Dark side of the Force. Impatient to rid the universe of its conflicts, Kyp steals an extraordinary doomsday weapon - the Sun Crusher - to subjugate the Republic's last enemies. And when Luke Skywalker confronts his rebellious student, a titanic duel of Jedi powers erupts. But Kyp has a dark and deadly ally on his side... and together they may prove more than even a Jedi Master can handle.Or in other words it seems to me that they are referring to the point at which Kun & Kyp combined their powers to defeat Luke, indeed proving "more powerful than even a Jedi Master can face" and perhaps a greater opponent than even DE Palpatine.
And if read that way tbh, what with the aforementioned chain + Kun > Spirit!Kun and frankly, it seems more likely that Kyp was providing most of the power. mmm
Which aligns pretty well with the JA description that it was the "full might" of Kyp Durron and only the "forbidden weapons" of Exar Kun (rather than Palpatine-tier power kekekek) that contributed to Luke's defeat, yeah.
You're literally ignoring a plethora of factual statements from numerous sources to make that argument. I won't bother arguing it, because we both know the case I'll make, which you'll inevitably ignore and just insult my capacity as a debater to make yourself feel better.
It is an undeniable fact that Exar Kun as a spirit used Kyp Durron as a source of energy to fuel his disembodied will. A vessel through which to channel some of his powers to attack people such as Corran Horn and Luke Skywalker. Kyp Durron was far more powerful than he otherwise would be due to this symbiotic possession.
Move on, nothing to see here.
Rath of Destruction stating: "Only by defying the most sacred traditions, rejecting all he has been taught, and drawing upon the long-forgotten wisdom of the very first Sith can Bane hope to triumph". Bane didn't learn from the very first Sith.
Rule of Two stating: "There is one who is determined to stop Darth Bane: Johun Othone, Padawan to Jedi Master Lord Hoth, who died at Bane's hands in the last great Sith War." Bane didn't kill Hoth.
Dynasty of evil stating: "the future of the dark side’s most powerful disciples will be decided, once and for all, by the final, fatal stroke of a lightsaber." The fight doesn't end with a lightsaber stroke.
Also: "If the dark side's most powerful master can capture the ultimate secret, the Sith will never die—and neither will Darth Bane." Bane gets the secret and still dies.
Revan stating: "With no idea what it is, or how to stop it, Revan may very well fail, for he’s never faced a more powerful and diabolic enemy." Lmao, the complete opposite of the truth.
And "There’s something out there: a juggernaut of evil bearing down to crush the Republic—unless one lone Jedi, shunned and reviled, can stop it." I guess we all imagined Meetra being there.
Providing evidence to back-up your claims counts as conceding to you? I guess that explains some things. mmm
That numerous blurbs are factually incorrect proves that the blurbs are not binding statements, are intensely fallible and are written by people who haven't even read the material at all. Like I argued several pages ago. I didn't even mention the Plagueis blurb. I don't need to. The debunking of blurbs as a whole means that the Plagueis blurb cannot and should not be used as evidence at all. It's a fallible, hyperbolic crock of shit cooked up by an intern to sell books. Nothing more.
Arbitrary tripe yeah, fallibility and hyperbole are not at all exclusive to publishing summaries at all and if half a dozen (supposed) mistakes and/or exaggerations is enough to invalidate blurbs wholesale then the countless errors, hyperbolic claims and down right absurd statements present in sourcebooks should be sufficient to invalidate those as well. While your assumptions regarding the process by which publishing summaries are produced are about as baseless as any I'd care to make regarding reference guides.
The facts of the matter are these:
1. Publishing summaries are canon, as they are produced by a Lucas Company (Lucas Books)
2. Anecdotical errors are no basis for overruling their canon status wholesale.
3. A statement made in a publishing summary can only be reasonably overruled if it is contradicted by the primary source material.
This is the only unbiased way of going about things, as opposed to appealing to gut feelings and baseless assumptions.