quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Alright, let's cycle through your complaints, which seem to align closely with Neph's:

1. "They aren't a part of the story" - since when does information have to be narrative to constitute a part of the official literature? What about sourcebooks, guides, visual dictionaries, etc.? None of these add new stories to the universe, but they're still accepted as parts of the continuity. This is, as we'll see to be a pattern, a made-up rule.

2. "just an interpretation of events" - so are sourcebooks, guides, visual dictionaries, and even novelizations and other adaptations. There is, once again, no actual policy suggesting that interpretative sources don't count. And if there's a reason to discount them, nobody has actually made it - they just restate their reservations as justification for themselves, .i.e. here.

3. "they're made to sell" - rather horribly naive given that this applies to basically everything, and still another arbitrary rule. Are you prepared to vet every source available to us by guessing which author is in it for the art, and which is in it for the money? Where's your line going to be? You don't even know that the publisher doesn't care about the story, and is using the blurb to add excitement or wonder to it - it's another arbitrary claim, and even if it were true, irrelevant to the question of whether it counts as evidence.

4. "not checked over by the author" - the author is perfectly capable of checking or objecting to the blurb. But even if they were not, there's no rule suggesting that authors have exclusive monopolies over their creation. They already have editors, the publishers already influence which books they create, and others can put their characters into sourcebooks and add new information on that. What matter is whether Lucasarts/films approves of the material, not whether any individual author does. This complaint is, yet again, another arbitrary rule.

Nobody here is suggesting that publisher's blurbs are sacrosanct; like all other aspects of the literature, they must be taken into account with the surrounding evidence. But here, you offer no "surrounding evidence" to force discrediting or reinterpreting the blurb; you just offer your gut hidden behind a bunch of circular criteria for canon that you made up.

Now, if you want to explain why something being on the outside of the story rather than the inside is grounds to dismiss it, you're welcome to present your case. But your whole post here has been a thinly veiled exercise in circular argumentation - "this arbitrary rule of mine is right because of these five other arbitrary rules of mine that justify each other!"

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Azronger
Neph is in denial again

To answer the OP's question: Yes, unless a new quote comes along, which retcons it.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
Question: Does this quote apply to any and every character (or iteration of a character) introduced into the lore after the Plagueis novel was published?

quote:

Are The Old Republic expansions canon?

No — BioWare "has created their own universe that is so fantastic," we're not going to change it, says Hidalgo.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
1. That statement is (not) canon, and from a 'secondary' source (i.e. Del Ray). The story (itself) does not promotes Darth Plagueis in this manner.

2. Legends continuity is no longer a valid continuity! Essentially null and void.

3. The SWTOR project is [active] and it is logical to perceive it as the alternate universe like in the official circles at present:

4. Only the TOR affiliated novels are Legends. Therefore, that statement encompasses only them. Not the additional content.

Therefore, you are not bound to take it as gospel.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by SunRazer
I wasn't taking your statement at all. In fact, I view pretty much everything you do as trolling these days.