Lit From a Certain Point of View, 40th anniversary anthology novel (#OperationBlueMilk)

Discussion in 'Literature' started by bsmith7174, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. Daneira Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2016
    star 3
    Figrin D'an and the Tonnika Sisters were always canon - they're in the movie. And actually, in Legends, the Tonnika Sisters in the cantina aren't actually the Tonnika Sisters, but impostors, so that's actually a change from Legends.
  2. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 8
    Their names, until a source (Complete Locations for example) reuses them, are Legends- as are their histories. It does look like the newcanon tends to reuse Legends material of this kind though.
    TheRedBlade likes this.
  3. GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin + Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Thank goodness, as far as I'm concerned. I really don't want to learn new names for everything if I don't have to.


    Missa ab iPhona mea est.
  4. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    Characters, worlds, ship classes, tech, alien species = 99% of them so far match the names in Legends. Thank the Force, plus I'm not at all surprised.

    --Adm. Nick
  5. LelalMekha Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2012
    star 4
    Yep, there have been one or two notable exceptions, such as the Tusken Raider formerly known as URoRRuR'R'R.
  6. revan772 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 5, 2014
    star 3
    We will never forget you URoRRuR'R'R...
  7. darklordoftech Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 6
    Since he said his name, I wonder if he's a Pokémon.
  8. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 7
    No way Major Tunde.
  9. Pfluegermeister Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    I feel the Story Group's overriding logic is that they change what they need to, in order to accommodate the needs of the film program as they arise; but they don't see the need to reinvent the wheel if they don't have to. It makes little difference to the story needs of future projects if, for instance, Imperial Officer #2's name was Praji or Pendleton, the logic goes; so they figure they might as well go with Praji...
  10. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1

    I'm sorry you're being treated so terribly by people who want to ascribe horrible motivations to you for simply expressing your opinion. Their judgmental "keyboard courage" and inability to cope with differing views is sadly a feature around here as opposed to a bug. It's why I rarely post in these threads.

    For what it's worth, I do concur with your assessment. The retconning of Ackmena's sexual orientation was gratuitous and comes across for the sole purpose of checking some sort of box.

    Which renders it meaningless and distracting.

    Also--as I feared when this book was first announced--this was largely a terrible mess with a hodgepodge of very average stories exploring a setting we've seen explored a hundred times over.

    Very underwhelming and my second least favorite novel behind that heinous book Aftermath.

    On the bright side, we're getting a Thrawn sequel next year. So something to look forward to after this trainwreck.
    Last edited by Counter, Oct 11, 2017
  11. Outsourced Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2017
    star 3
    It's kind of funny how you're trying to take the moral high ground in all of this.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  12. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1
    I'm not trying. I'm actually doing it.

    This forum is about as open to differing perspectives as that fascist Palpatine. Which would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

    The guy was offering a literary criticism about the decision to make someone gay. And some of you are calling him names and crucifying him in order to virtue signal to others how "woke" or "tolerant" you are.

    You're none of those things.
    Last edited by Counter, Oct 11, 2017
  13. Outsourced Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2017
    star 3
    Only if you're successful.
  14. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    This book has been a real struggle for me. I've just found most of it so utterly boring and the writing decidedly meh, outside of a few stories here and there.

    The gay stormtrooper/Mouse droid story was actually pretty funny I thought. I definitely didn't have a problem with it, and don't see why anyone would tbh.

    But yeah definitely a disappointment overall, this book has been. Especially after Phasma was so decent.
  15. Todd the Jedi Mod and Soliloquist of SWTV

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2008
    star 6
    @Counter Again, a single sentence. Tiny character detail for a tiny character. That's the exact opposite of gratuitous. And establishing her orientation when it had never been established before means there's zero retconning going on.

    FFS dude, at least try to put some effort if you ever want people to take your views seriously. And if you think people here just carte blanche shutting down differing opinions, then you're either not paying any attention or you're intentionally trying to come across as edgy, which I'm sorry to say isn't as cool or satisfying as you think it is.
    Last edited by Todd the Jedi, Oct 11, 2017
  16. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1

    The fact that it was one sentence is the very reason it was gratuitous. It served no purpose.

    Crack open a dictionary. That's literally the definition of the word.

    If you're going to ask someone to put effort into something, you should probably start by following your own advice. ;)
  17. Outsourced Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2017
    star 3
    So you'd be fine with it if it was more than one sentence? How many sentences does it take to fit your arbitrary guidelines?
    Daneira likes this.
  18. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1

    However many sentences it takes to actually make it serve a story purpose.

    As opposed to you know...gratuitous.
  19. Todd the Jedi Mod and Soliloquist of SWTV

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2008
    star 6
    I mean, like I said to the last guy, why is it this particular marital status offends your "literary sensibilities" so much? Would you be having a conniption if she was revealed as married but straight? Oh right, it's that silly old liberal agenda that ticks you off, right? That whole "trying to be inclusive" thing just rustles your jimmies too much?

    Get a grip dude- gay people exist, and it's about time they got more and more representation; doesn't need any further purpose than that.
  20. EmperorHorus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2016
    star 2
    Why is it gratuitous to just mention someone having a same-sex partner but it's fine to just mention they have a partner of a different gender?
  21. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1

    You continue to make DaRonin's and my point. Its only purpose is to check a box and tell the reader: "Look! A gay person! In Star Wars!"

    Which means it serves no literary purpose. Which--to some of us--is highly annoying and distracting. Which, believe it or not, is one of the reasons Chuck Wendig's Aftermath trilogy is so bad. He is more concerned with an OOU approval for checking a box than for telling a good story.

    You know what didn't bother me? Karen Traviss' gay Mandalorians in Legacy of the Force. She actually used them for storytelling purposes and it largely worked and wasn't distracting.

    But please, by all means, continue being a "courageous" keyboard warrior and ascribing motivations to others that only exist in your narrow mind.
  22. Force Smuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 7
    I, myself didn't even know they were a gay couple until I read it on Wookieepedia, years later.
    revan772 and Counter like this.
  23. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1
    Medrit and Goran.

    Actual well-developed and good characters that helped train Jaina for her fight with Caedus and move the story along. A great example of an author not being gratuitous and checking a box.
  24. Todd the Jedi Mod and Soliloquist of SWTV

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2008
    star 6
    And yet you guys are the only ones really having anything but an apathetic reaction to it. Does every line need to serve a literary purpose? Not really, especially in a set of short stories where the authors were given more or less free reign to write whatever fun stories they wanted to. I hate to break it to you, but these books ain't exactly high literature- franchise tie-ins don't need to be anything more than "popcorn flicks" of books.

    Like, I can't stress this enough- it's one little line that you're condemning because you're offended by it's subject matter. I could open up the book and pick out any number of little throwaway lines and with little to no literary purpose is and ask why you're not upset about those, but you've already made your view very clear. Calling this particular line gratuitous and a retcon is disingenuous at best and intolerant at worst.

    Also FYI, citing Traviss, an author infamous for pushing her personal views into her books to the point where some would say it was forced, probably not your best play here.
  25. Mia Mesharad Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    You do realize Goran Beviin's relationship with Medrit was initially introduced almost identically to Ackmena and her wife, with what could very well have been seen at the time as a throw away statement? It's entirely possible that this may only be the beginning of a further developed relationship, and an overall expansion of a character that—considering who portrayed her and the right-in-the-middle-of-things position she occupies on Tatooine—could have a great deal of potential going forward.

    Even if that's not the case, though, casually dropping references to same-sex spouses or lovers is no great sin against the franchise. We're constantly given small hints of characters' often untold larger lives, foremost among them tidbits about their families. How many times does someone mention their husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend? How many times do we just accept that as a small part of rounding out that character, giving them a little bit more realism and place in the universe, even if it served no further narrative purpose? It creates the illusion of reality, and the reality is that people of all genders are going to have lovers of all genders. And there needs not be anything more that necessitates their inclusion in the story than that simple fact. It's not a political statement, or an agenda. If it was, it would only be an agenda to better reflect reality. Removing these references because they don't offer an arbitrary level of enough, whatever that means in a floating, nebulous grey of whether enough ever really is enough, is a far more insidious agenda, and one Star Wars should not be catering to.

    Ah, but the truth is that she was. By every definition of "box-checking" that gets so often applied, Traviss absolutely was checking a box. An empty box that she realized had been empty far too long. She specifically noted—several times, in fact—that the lack of gay characters in Star Wars at the time was something that stood out in stark contrast to reality, and did not represent either the world she lived in or the one she was looking to create and portray. So she checked the box. And that decision was absolutely fine. Moreover, it was great. Filling in a blank that you noticed, and one that had too long remained blank, is not a bad thing. Yes, Goran and Medrit were ultimately more developed than Ackmena currently is in present canon, but that's okay. They were given more time to build that characterization. Let's see where Ackmena—let's see where any character like this—goes in the future. And if at the end of the day a small reference only ever does amount to a small reference? Then it's no more harmful than, say...Baltan Carid's offhand comment about his wife, to use another LotF Mandalorian as an example, a character whom we never meet but nonetheless adds just a little more depth to Carid just by existing.
    Last edited by Mia Mesharad, Oct 11, 2017
  26. Counter Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2017
    star 1
    You're the one, among others, who took DaRonin's single critique of the gratuitous box-checking for Ackmena and turned into a "He's a bigot!" canard in order to make yourself feel morally righteous on an Internet message board.

    There were a LOT of literary criticisms with this novel. I'm happy to go into as much detail as is warranted--everything from the mind-numbing Mouse droid story to Wuher to the snoozing meaningless Beru story that was a complete missed opportunity in my mind.

    I'm focusing on the Ackmena issue precisely because all of you jumped down DaRonin's throat when I had the exact same reaction that he did.

    The fact that you have no counter to the fact that I thought Traviss used gay characters very well aside from: "Well, Traviss isn't well liked here for pushing her agenda" makes my frickity fracking point once again. I have a lot of criticisms of Traviss too (not the least of which is her hatred of the Jedi and her God complex for Mandalorians), but she at least knew how to give characters some depth.

    There's no anger at the liberal agenda, keyboard warrior. There's anger at a bad author continuing to be a bad author and people like you being unable to cope with legitimate criticisms that don't line up with how you view things. And then using your inability to process a certain point of view (pun very much intended) to accuse other people of being bigots.

    People like you give true progressives a bad name. And make this Board absolutely toxic at times.
    Last edited by Counter, Oct 11, 2017