Originally posted by Petrus
Um, so who else would know the correct interpretation if not for the people who wrote the material...?What you're asking for right now is ridiculous imo. The moment any SW material the author created is introduced into games, movies, comics, etc., it's canon. That canon material is up for interpretation by fans, and the only guy who knows what the actual interpretation of the canon material is, is the author.
Or are you honestly suggesting Disney should ask every single author what is the correct way to interpret his/her created material to make it officially and irrevocably canon? You're asking for too much.
Nobody knows it, because a correct interpretation doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The argument here is that regardless of the author's intents, they do not have full control over their creation. No, the author is not consulted on what the correct way to intepret his or her created material is and that's precisely [b]the point. The moment the book, game etc. is published and enters into wider continuity, the author relinquishes creative control over their own work (ergo, the death of the author) and instead Disney or whomever, are free to read, mold, or even rewrite the material in anyway they please.For example according to the author of Dark Empire Force storms are not a direct product of Palpatine's power, but a product of the minds of two powerful Force wielders colliding. And yet despite this all secondary sources are unanimous in describing it as a direct manifestation of his power, that he can indeed unleash at will, the intents of the author have been entirely overridden. [/B]
You are the only person who has had the mental faculties to comprehend this so far. Thank you.
Originally posted by SunRazer
Author intent isn't infallible and can be overriden, but if they're just elaborating on their own works and their claims aren't contradicted by canonical information, then it's worth taking into account.Their opinions on the outcomes of fights or something are irrelevant.
But again, regardless is contradicted or not, it's still not part of canon.
I didn't say it's canon; I said it's worth taking into account. Much like TSLRCM or DS options.
To suggest than an author's clarification of something that he wrote, especially if it isn't contradicted by any canonical material whatsoever, is completely not worth factoring in at all, is confirmation bias. Their claims might be fallible but they know better.
Originally posted by SunRazer
I didn't say it's canon; I said it's worth taking into account. Much like TSLRCM or DS options.To suggest than an author's clarification of something that he wrote, especially if it isn't contradicted by any canonical material whatsoever, is completely not worth factoring in at all, is confirmation bias. Their claims might be fallible but they know better.
👆
We may have disagreements over some official aspects of the lore at times since the lore is continously expanding (conventional wisdom is that new information takes precedence over older information but older information does not looses its validity completely and should not be discarded without context). In these situations, clarification from the relevant author on the relevant matter is a meaningful way to address a 'case of uncertainty' in it.
Originally posted by NewGuy01This seems obvious enough, unsure why it's contested. The author knows best about their own work, so as far as I'm concerned, if an author or a creative leader says something about THEIR project, it's just as valid as the source itself.
Because the authors know the correct interpretation of what they wrote. Duh.