Lit How did the prequels affect the post-RoTJ timeline?

And so it may be even so it doesn't disprove my point.

All the characters you mentioned by the end of the NJO were among the galactic elite and spent their time with said elite. Heck Luke had Lando and his merry band of smugglers conduct a coup that ensured Rodan wouldn't become prime minister.

The Jedi busted Tahiri out of prison and got rid of Daala in the New Sith wars Jedi became Lords of Planets and supreme chancellors.

The old eu very much involved the saga of the elite.

 

Oh you mean by the end of a series that was, as we have all agreed, been influenced by the prequels?

 

Even prior in the bantam era Luke got Kyp off on genocide charges, Leia was prime minister and Han was running around doing as he pleases? Tell me would Isolder a prince of an aristocratic society proposed to a mere peasant girl? No.

Wedge by LOTF was (sensibly) an admiral.

Most of the GFFA isn't involved in the big sweeping saga.

As Trump said last Thursday "the people aren't involved" and he was right the general population doesn't really participate in the drama of history.

Lando is running lots of businesses has pleasure yachts and the like.

Need I present more evidence or have I convinced you?

 

Well, all elites started out as nobodies at some point. Of the infamous robber barons of the gilded age, I believe only one inherited any degree of wealth, and even that was a small, failing business. Andrew Carnegie, at least, came to the US as a penniless immigrant before dying as one of the wealthiest people in world history, even after donating massive amounts to many charities.

Raises quite the conundrum really - if you go by what they started out as, then a lot of elite don't actually count as elite anymore. But if one goes by what they are at the moment...well, then only elites change history because anyone who changes history counts as an elite.

In any case, legends had lots of stories concerning smaller scale perspectives

 

No, you quoted an orange imbecile as a way of wrapping up a fairly commendable missing of the point.

The stories focused on ordinary people who were often called to do extraordinary things. But they weren't all rubbing arms with the heads of state and making decisions at that level.

The prequels came, and in a cynical ploy the stories decided to mirror the prequels scale and scope with OT characters. I don't think this is something that's contested, except strangely by you and I don't think even you know why.

 

I'll have to take your word for it there, as I must confess I haven't finished all the Stackpole X-wing books (please don't shoot! I'm getting there I promise!) I have finished the Allston ones though. My reading habits are very random.

What I CAN comment on though is comparing The Thrawn Trilogy to LOTF (I haven't finished LOTF either, but that's a personal choice based on their lack of quality rather than my own laziness).

In TTT people don't hate Borsk because he's a politician, but because he's a corrupt, power seeking politician. IMO politics is treated less like something universally evil, but rather natural growing pains the heroes must deal with as they transition from over throwing a government to trying to run one. LOTF, on the other hand, seems to have "The system is screwed, all governments are evil" as one of its thesis statements.

 

The OT's arm rubbing with the galactic elite began late Bantam era.

 

Such as?

 

I agree, but you don't even have to look to the Marxists for this. People as different as Francis Fukuyama and Fernand Braudel, both anti-Marxist in completely different ways, wrote historical analyses where individuals are almost completely absent.

The only histories that really look to individuals the way Invictus seems to think are 'historians' like Bill O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich.

 

Well there is that senator turned chief of state Mon Mothma; senator turned chief of state princess Leia Organa; ex-baron administrator, ex-general turned high flying businessman Lando Calrissian; ex-general, prince consort Han Solo; admiral Gial Ackbar; prince Isolder of the Hapes Consortium; never gets a mission that do not involves at least the destiny of one planet [don't remember his title] Wedge Antilles; ex-general, Jedi knight Luke Skywalker; etc.

 

I'd also add that there's a minor theme in TTT of people thinking Borsk is worse than he actually is - assuming he's an Imperial agent, or worrying that he plans to stage a coup - which is proven baseless. I thought that was kind of refreshing at the time.

 

Who said anything about my favorite historians? I have stated an irrefutable truth and its
up to everyone else to accept it.

 

There was no mention of your favourites in that post.

 

The Jedi aren't just warriors their monks with a connection a universal mystic energy field. They very much need to be philosophical!

 

I- how is this an argument? Is this how you see the world?

And without even a hint of irony.

 

I have faith that my convictions are true and trustworthy, I am not plagued my doubt or useless ambiguity. Much like Jacen in Traitor I seek not to haggle or vacillate.

Saying the world is too "complex" is too often used to avoid doing what is right, avoid offense and a way for people to escape their own amorality.

 

Cites Trump, has biblical signature - would vague Libertarian sympathies (without being fully fledged Libertarian) be in your wheel house too?

 

Libertarian's hearts are in the right place for the most part, there are certain...aspects of history and society they ignore that renders their analyses and prescriptions lacking.

As it is I understand your from Australia and I'd guess you either vote for Labor or the greens.

 

I'm just trying to get a sense of how he sees the world, Point Given, because it seems lense-wise he generally applies a vastly different one. Hence why I suggested and he confirmed the libertarian piece; if I guessed further I would say the Edmund Burke comment about the requirement for evil to triumph is a comment he responds to in the affirmative.

And no, Invictus, I was an Australian Democrat until the party folded. Now I am aligned to the small-l liberal faction (the centre-right progressives) of the governing conservative Liberal party.

I think our views on history don't diverge as much as you think. Undoubtedly you cannot look at someone like Temujin and say "well, it was really emblematic of a shift in Mongol culture of the time". But the movements of ordinary people cannot be understated. If you take another left leaning, moderately liberal revolution - Cuba - you have your great people like Fidel and Raul, the Communist Ernest Guevara, Camillo Cienfuegos. But you have the others who made things happen.

What the early EU did well, probably in proportion to the sense of scale of the OT, was focus on the non-Che types. The X-Wing books are a marvellous example of this. And to the point earlier from Gamiel about Mon Mothma - sure, and in TTT they basically rule as a kind of military junta. It's hardly a democratic government.

The prequels dealt with the upper eschelons of power, which are less interesting because they're less about people on backwater planets dealing with localised issues, and more about grand scale - even beyond perhaps comprehension. That is my point; the tonal shift upwards made it less relatable.

 

Tell that to Naboo

You mean unlike battling a galactic empire that has planet destroying weapons, like we saw in the OT?

 

But Gamiel, the thing with the empire was you were able to segregate the Empire up, and so the villains were localised warlords and the like. It wasn't you and your admirals v them and their admirals. Aces like Soontir fel vs Wedge Antillies. And lots of faceless stormtroopers.

 

What about Admiral Ackbar, or General Rieekian, or Dodonna?