Originally posted by SunRazer
Az, you also used authorial intent at one point in your Palpatine essay. It would be a double standard to not give it at least some consideration with respect to everything else, except when canonical material explicitly contradicts the claims.
Yeah, I've noticed that. I'm currently on the fence about whether I'll accept author intent. Though Harr's vowed to prove that they're canon to me by asking Del Rey.
Originally posted by Petrus
Do you believe that if the author's interpretation is never contradicted, this specific interpretation should be valid?I'm referring to Filoni saying only Vader and Sidious can go 'blow for blow' with her, or him saying she's grown, etc?
Also, what about what he says of Maul and Kenobi and their fight?
I honestly think that should all be taken with a grain of salt, instead of just being accepted as fact. Authors like Filoni can obviously have their own bias and agendas which the story group may have to hold him back on, and limit how far he takes it in actual canon.
Like Filoni implies Rebels Maul can't match Ahsoka, and yet he does in Canon. Perhaps that was the Story Group holding Filoni back, and if he was completely in charge he likely would have had Ahsoka kicking Maul's butt.
I think applying author's intent until/unless contradicted is probably a safe and reasonable approach though.
1. Maul can stalemate ahsoka inconclusively and still be marginally inferior hence not being able to match her "Blow for blow". There's no contradiction here.
Not to mention that the fight happened on a darkside nexus
That aside, agreed. However there has to be an actual contradiction, not a constructed one
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Maul can stalemate ahsoka inconclusively and still be marginally inferior hence not being able to match her "Blow for blow". There's no contradiction here.Not to mention that the fight happened on a darkside nexus
Being "marginally" inferior would not count as not being able to match Ahsoka blow for blow. He literally was matching her blow for blow.
Taking into account the dark side Nexus would be the opposite end of the argument given it's clear there was no creator intention to show Maul/Vader being amped in their fights against Ahsoka.
1. Pretty sure blow for blow is a figure of speech for them being equal. Regardless it was on a nexus per that inquisitor thing.
2. Uh no, because one of the writers implied it was a nexus. And you could certainly argue for it being shown based on the massive discrepancy between ahsoka's performance bs the inquisitors on neutral ground and then on malachor's.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Pretty sure blow for blow is a figure of speech for them being equal. Regardless it was on a nexus per that inquisitor thing.
We can only go by what he said, otherwise we're speculating. He said no one else can match her blow for blow, but Maul did.
That "writer" had himself said he didn't know.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang2. Uh no, because one of the writers implied it was a nexus. And you could certainly argue for it being shown based on the massive discrepancy between ahsoka's performance bs the inquisitors on neutral ground and then on malachor's.
Nope, not writers intention. Filoni makes it clear the Vader vs Ahsoka happened how he always imagined it (unless you think he always imagined it happening on a DS Nexus lol).
And Pablo Hidalgo himself couldn't confirm to DarthDuelist on Twitter if Malachor enhanced Vader and Maul in combat.
1. you have to prove feloni didn't intend for it to be a nexus if you want to use that a basis to overule the other writer's claim. Given the decision to have the fight in a well known nexus in legends, and ahsoka's performance vs the inqusitors, I think the evidence doesn't support you here.
2. Quote for hildago?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. you have to prove feloni didn't intend for it to be a nexus if you want to use that a basis to overule the other writer's claim. Given the decision to have the fight in a well known nexus in legends, and ahsoka's performance vs the inqusitors, I think the evidence doesn't support you here.2. Quote for hildago?
1. Since when is it guaranteed that Canon follows Legend rules? I don't have to prove anything. It's never hinted in the episode that Maul/Vader had a natural dark side advantage. And neither does Filoni ever confirm or even hint at that. In fact he got to make the Ahsoka vs Vader fight "how he always imagined it."
And neither can the story group confirm any amp.
Not the mention how even more pathetic a loss that would be for Maul against Kanan.
2. It was a few months ago on his twitter account. Message DarthDuelist9. He's the one who asked him.
Originally posted by The Merchant
Death of the author should be applied. Tom Veitch thinks Kun~DE Palpatine or outright>DE Palpatine for example and he wrote DE and co-wrote Totj.
Which was probably true back when the they were written. Sidious being the most powerful Sith Lord in history was something that was established with the Prequels, back in the 80's and 90's that would have been much less clear. Granted, he still had the better feats of the two even back then, but Tom's opinion isn't outlandish whatsoever--just outdated.
Yes, authorial intent matters... What the creators were trying to convey are the facts. But, newer material trumps older material, provided they clash, which is why we're right and he's wrong in this instance.