Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDNo retcon lol, that's just the paperback edition. The above is from the sleeve of the hardcover. Nice try tho. 😉
This is the back cover of latest print of [B]Darth Plagueis novel:Source: https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Darth-Plagueis-Legends/dp/0345511298
Looks like they abandoned the earlier hype for another, which is still a hype.
The hype is about the midichlorian manipulation skill of Darth Plagueis. [/B]
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Was the quote retconnected? No? Then it's no retcon.
Also, pre-retcon it was canonical then?
Originally posted by SunRazer
No, it's not. Nowhere is the fact that Plagueis was the most powerful Sith Lord up to and of his time contested.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No retcon lol, that's just the paperback edition. The above is from the sleeve of the hardcover. Nice try tho. 😉
How do you think a retcon occurs? They replaced the older backcover with a new one. The latest copies will have the backcover that I have cited here.
They have opened the door for an ancient Sith or practitioner of the Dark Side to be stronger than Darth Plagueis but they stick to the argument that Darth Plagueis holds his own with midichlorian manipulation.
A retcon is never direct; it is implied through changes in the latest edition of a book. But I understand that some of you will take time to come to terms with the latest change.
Lmao Legend, just admit you were mistaken rather than continuing to further embarrass yourself. There are two versions of the Darth Plagueis novel, a paperback and a hardback, your image is from the paperback, and it is not new.
Understand that Legends has been discontinued, so it would be counterintuitive if not entirely redundant to retcon any EU material.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Lmao Legend, just admit you were mistaken rather than continuing to further embarrass yourself. There are two versions of the Darth Plagueis novel, a paperback and a hardback, your image is from the paperback, and it is not new.Understand that Legends has been discontinued, so it would be counterintuitive if not entirely redundant to retcon any EU material.
The print I have cited is latest with updated backcover. Release date is October 30, 2012.
Now, why would the publisher change the backcover of a novel in its newer print? Doesn't makes sense unless a retcon or amendment in backcover content was necessary.
Try harder.
Cool, so you concede that the hardcover and the paperback were in print at the same time, both before the Legends/Canon split. Debunking the idea that this is a retcon. Thanks.
And FYI, mass market paperbacks and also published some time after the hardcover release, this is standard industry practice.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Cool, so you concede that the hardcover and the paperback were in print at the same time, both before the Legends/Canon split. Debunking the idea that this is a retcon. Thanks.And FYI, mass market paperbacks and also published some time after the hardcover release, this is standard industry practice.
Oh just log-out already, I don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity.
I'll explain one more time. There exist two versions of the Darth Plagueis novel, the hardcover and the paperback, the paperback did not replace the hardback, given they were in print at the same time, it's just a different version. No more or less valid than its precursor which again, remained in print. Is this really was a retcon, the hardcover would have at the very least been replaced, with a new hardcover version. The fact the (mass market) paperback was published after the hardcover, only reflecting standard industry practices.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Oh just log-out already, I don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity.I'll explain one more time. There exist two versions of the Darth Plagueis novel, the hardcover and the paperback, the paperback did not replace the hardback, given they were in print at the same time, it's just a different version. No more or less valid than its precursor which again, remained in print. Is this really was a retcon, the hardcover would have at the very least been replaced, with a new hardcover version. The fact the (mass market) paperback was published after the hardcover, only reflecting standard industry practices.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDWow, reading your posts is like watching a neadernthal, Christ. I already said why, because its a mass market paperback i.e. a cheap reprint of the original edition, months after the hardcover release. Stop wasting my time and look it up.
Then why 8 month gap in release of the paperback edition and why the paperback edition is also mentioned as [B]reprint edition? 🙄 [/B]
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Wow, reading your posts is like watching a neadernthal, Christ. I already said why, because its a mass market paperback i.e. a cheap reprint of the original edition, months after the hardcover release. Stop wasting my time and look it up.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Wow, reading your posts is like watching a neadernthal, Christ. I already said why, because its a mass market paperback i.e. a cheap reprint of the original edition, months after the hardcover release. Stop wasting my time and look it up.
👍
Paperback publisher summaries are pretty much always shorter and different from hardcover publisher summaries - for obvious reasons: they have less space for them.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDOh you primitive little clown, have you even ever read a book? Like Temp said, different book formats have different blurbs to suit their design and dimensions. So any more brain dead queries, or are you quite done?
Why would the publisher change the backcover of the same novel in a reprint, you idiot? Provide solid explanation or shutup.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
👍Paperback publisher summaries are pretty much always shorter and different from hardcover publisher summaries - for obvious reasons: they have less space for them.
Anyways, my argument is that a publisher does not alters the major marketing statement in the back cover of a reprint unless a retcon is considered.
Consider the example of Revan. The primary marketing statement in the back covers of both hardcover and paperback editions of this novel is this:
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.
Difference is that the back cover of paperback edition of Revan features a summary in addition to the aforementioned statement: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81PnMaXJKrL.jpg
That summary is also present in the hard cover edition of Revan but as a separate page and not on its back cover.
Most importantly, original content is not altered in shape or form.
-----
Back cover of paperback edition of Darth Plagueis contains (altered) details in it. In comparison, the back cover of hardcover edition of Darth Plagueis contains a single statement which is excluded from the back cover of paperback edition. Check the images.
-----
Beniboybling is a douche. I know that he will react like a child in this matter.
I don't know what's more depressing, that you might actually be so monumentally stupid as to believe what you're saying, or so maddeningly desperate to cling to such a craptastic attempt to disprove this statement. facepalm
A silver-lining however, by arguing this quote has been retconned, you've conceded it was canon in the first place. 🙂
Moving forward, until you have some proof that the hardcover edition was taken out of print to reflect this "retcon", you're just flapping your gums with no reasonable basis. I certainly won't be wasting any more explaining common sense to a monkey.
