How much you rely on sourcebooks and handbooks?

I am referring when it comes to the author's in-universe interpretation of certain events playing in a book.

What is more 'official' for you:
These or the book itself?

What do you do when you meet inconsistencies between hand/sourcebooks and books?

Accept the authorial intent(the book) or the interpretation of the authorial intent(handbooks and sourcebooks)?

By definition all interpretations are valid, however, some interpretations are more reasonable than others.

Not every source book is in-universe.

Regardless, I'll almost always take the actual book/game/whatever over a source book's summary of events.

The handbooks are only there to explain the events in question and further reinforce the issues that played out in the source material. If there are no inconsistencies, then why would it be wrong?

The Source comes first. The handbooks come second. Your interpretations come last.

Their validity is 100% factual, unquestionable and they express the thematic culmination of every legislator that has put pen 2 paper.

Originally posted by JMANGO
Their validity is 100% factual, unquestionable and they express the thematic culmination of every legislator that has put pen 2 paper.

A fragment from a source/handbook regarding ROTJ has Palpatine's frail appearance(given by the corrosive effects of the Dark Side) as misleading because he is actually very capable of lightsabre combat.
Yet, in Dark Empire Trilogy we find out that the corrosive aspects of the Dark Side actually do cause harm to his body.

😂

So much accuracy in your source/handbooks.

What's so funny? There is no direct contradiction between the two statements you just made. The effects of the dark side can damage Sheev's body and yet, despite that, he still can be an incredibly capable duelist.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
The handbooks are only there to explain the events in question and further reinforce the issues that played out in the source material. If there are no inconsistencies, then why would it be wrong?

The Source comes first. The handbooks come second. Your interpretations come last.

I specifically refer to inconsistencies. Because there are. 😆

Your interpretations come last.

This where you are wrong, actually. The handbooks and sourcebooks are nothing else but another interpretation(of an author0 on the said-so book.
Just like me and you: he/she tries to give his/her own interpretation about those events which have already taken place in a certain book.

Definition of sourcebook
: a fundamental document or record (as of history, literature, art, or religion) on which subsequent writings, compositions, OPINIONS, BELIEFS, or practices are based; also : a collection of such documents

Definition of handbook
1 a : a book capable of being conveniently carried as a ready reference : manual
b : a concise reference book covering a particular subject

Of course that when it comes to Star Wars - a handbook is not only a manual telling you certain things about the Force or the Sith Lords' powers, etc

Sometimes it also has interpretation of events too.

"Definition of the Analysis and Interpretation component from the Handbook

The teaching of a literary text consists of the following key components:

* Pre-Reading Activity

* Basic Understanding

* Analysis and Interpretation

* Bridging Text and Context

* Post-Reading Activity

* Summative Assessment

The following is the definition of the Analysis and Interpretation component according to the teachers’ handbook for Integrating Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) with the Teaching of Literature:

Activities for Analysis and Interpretation enable students to analyze and interpret the text. Activities should include questions that go beyond the literal meaning of the text, as well as questions that relate to relevant literary terms. In addition, activities should include questions that relate to the specific higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). HOTS need to be taught explicitly. HOTS can be taught before, during or after reading a text. Decisions about when to teach them are driven by the following considerations: the text being studied: length of text, theme, setting, characters.
2. the choice of HOTS being introduced: Some HOTS cannot be taught after a text has been read(e.g. prediction) while others cannot be taught before the class has finished reading the text (e.g. synthesis).

3. the level of the class.

4. teacher preference."

http://tlc.cet.ac.il/ShowItem.aspx?ItemID=471ad4f8-8c76-4294-9df5-53d2919e6d2e&lang=EN

Basically it all comes down to interpretation. 💃

And just because an author said so that doesn't make it any more true(if inconsistencies appear between source/handbooks and books)

Originally posted by ares834
What's so funny? There is no direct contradiction between the two statements you just made. The effects of the dark side can damage Sheev's body and yet, despite that, he still can be an incredibly capable duelist.

You do realize - that in the first situation is stated that his deformation is only an 'aesthetical' aspect of his appearance(kind of like Palpatine's true face revealing when he FL's himself in ROTS)?

Whereas in Dark Empire Trilogy - he is actually physically hindered by the corrosive aspects of the Dark Side - he gets to the point that he needs his cane(just like in ROTJ)
I am talking, of course, about his already damaged (clone) body. Because we know he can get into a new one and be 'strong' once more.

And Dark Empire Palpatine is not the only example. We also have King Ommin and Freedon Nadd.

Stop trying to make these two things make (some) sense. Because they don't, actually.
That's why Sith Lords are forced to transfer their souls into other vessels - because their physical bodies degrade and sicken due to the effects of the Dark Side.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
You do realize - that in the first situation is stated that his deformation is only an 'aesthetical' aspect of his appearance(kind of like Palpatine's true face revealing when he FL's himself in ROTS)?

Then you should have said that rather then what you ended up posting.

I shouldn't have said that. It's not my fault you have problems with your understanding regarding literature.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
I specifically refer to inconsistencies. Because there are. 😆

This where you are wrong, actually. The handbooks and sourcebooks are nothing else but another interpretation(of an author0 on the said-so book.
Just like me and you: he/she tries to give his/her own interpretation about those events which have already taken place in a certain book.

Of course that when it comes to Star Wars - a handbook is not only a manual telling you certain things about the Force or the Sith Lords' powers, etc

Sometimes it also has interpretation of events too.

http://tlc.cet.ac.il/ShowItem.aspx?ItemID=471ad4f8-8c76-4294-9df5-53d2919e6d2e&lang=EN

Basically it all comes down to interpretation. 💃

And just because an author said so that doesn't make it any more true(if inconsistencies appear between source/handbooks and books)

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
I shouldn't have said that. It's not my fault you have problems with your understanding regarding literature.

No, you should have. I have no clue what source you were referring to.

The source material itself supersedes all.

Guidebooks(and the like) are simply meant to reiterate/solidify/corroborate the source material. If there are no explicit contradictions between them, Guidebooks are just as valid as the source material.

IF, however, there is a flagrant contradiction between them(which is rare, tbh), the source material is what we defer to.

...Not that this was anything more than a bait thread/question, lol.