My Man Zahn

Could be the home boy version of Yoda, also known as Yo!da.


I can just see him in oversized pants, boots a parka and took, "Yo! Whassup, Luuke! Dat badass mofo Vader kickin' in yo' crib? Well, I'll give ya da 9-1-1 on how to whup his ass!"


I hope no one was offended by this. All in good fun.

 

LMAO!

Thats just wrong!!!

 

"Bigup the Dagobah massive I will!"

 

yoda man Kier... you too Lancejade.

That is just wrong... LOL!

 

Based on Kier's post below, clarification is obviously needed. The quotes in red are from Genghis, the quotes in blue from Timothy Zahn.

Your baseless and transparent attacks do grow tiresome. But, I suppose there's some people who simply lack the ability to discuss the issues intelligently without resorting to such attacks.

Hmmm. I wonder why Genghis12 finds it to be an attack to be asked to back up his words. Most people have no problem backing up their words.

But I agree, Genghis. Based on the words in red above, it's all too true. Thanks for writing a fabulous example of such a lack of ability.


Aleja,
Now it's my turn

Please cite the sources for: blah blah blah



It's so sweet to be copied - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all - although imitation can be construed as a lack of original thinking.

In this case, Genghis, since I have never asserted any of the three statements you ask me to prove, I therefore have no reason to back them up. Your request is nonsensical, not to mention illogical.

Unlike others, in this thread I have not made sweeping statements of conjecture presented as fact("So-and-so whined") without actual back-up.

Now, let's look at the statements which you offer up as "factual proof" - which is actually your interpretation of what the remarks mean. Let us also keep in mind that interviews are not depositions - they are by no means binding legal documents:

"The rules were that I could start three to five years after Return of the Jedi and use any character who had not been killed off in the movies. Of course, they wanted veto power over anything I did

In other words, LFL had veto power. Veto: exercise of the right to reject measures: the exercise of the power or right to reject something, especially a political measure; prohibit something: to refuse to consent to or approve something.

"They looked at the outline and told me a couple of things I couldn't do. They cut out my favorite character. And originally, Joruus C'baoth was going to be a clone of Obi-wan Kenobi, but they said no."

They didn't want me to refer in detail to the clone wars which took place before the movies began.

OK. What we know: LFL had veto power. What we know: LFL used their veto power. What we know: LFL did not veto the Clone War references that did make into the book.

According to Genghis, LucasFilm cannot be held infallible. Therefore, if one wants to make the assumption that Zahn was so arrogant as to try and slip something past LucasFilm, it is just as valid to assume that either A) LucasFilm did indeed screw up or B)Zahn did everything that was asked and the word "details" refers to something other than Noghri time keeping systems.

As I asked before, cite the specific instructions given by LucasFilm to Timothy Zahn. Word for word. Only then will this matter truly be settled.

Without producting the actual instructions, this is merely an exercise in word-twisting which can easily be construed as bashing an author personally - as demonstrated by this statement "As far as that quote - he's clearly in "damage control" mode."

Really? You read his mind? You were there at the interview? You know, for certain, what his motives are behind the statement? Or you merely ascribing motives, making up something you have no idea is truthful or not?

Going back to the "factual" proof:
"I guess by that time Lucas had decided he was going to go back and make the prequel movies, and they didn't want me treading on his turf."

The use of the words "I guess" indicate that it is a guess. When one guesses, it is because one is not sure. If one is not sure, then things are not clear.

It's very simple.

But here comes the gross assumptions again:
LFL couldn't have been any plainer about their rules.

How do you know this? Where you there? Do you have a copy

 

My eyes hurt, but at least she only used 3 colors.

 

Sorry, Kier. I added a key to the colors used in the post.

 

I know, I was just teasin'

 

I would like to pose a question to any person in here who is bashing Zahn: how many SW books do you have published?
Is it possible that you are all saying these things out of jealousy over what the man has accomplished?

The man is a writer, he writes for a living. Would you appreciate having your work criticized by people who don't even work in your chosen profession?

Unless you are proffessional book critics, or writers yourselves (and preferably even then) LEAVE THE MAN ALONE! This is his *job* you're talking about.

He writes books for people like us (Star Wars fans) to enjoy, why do you have to bash him? If you don't like the books, than don't read them. No one is forcing you to read the man's books, are they?

 

Look, Im a Zahn fan and supporter, but I have yet to see any one bash Zahn. Could you please define "bash"?

 

I would like to pose a question to any person in here who is bashing Zahn: how many SW books do you have published?
Is it possible that you are all saying these things out of jealousy over what the man has accomplished?

We dont bash him, he criticise. We put reasons across.

We have a thing called an opinion. And on a board where opinions are used, we say our opinion. Need a simpler definition?


The man is a writer, he writes for a living. Would you appreciate having your work criticized by people who don't even work in your chosen profession?

It is what reviewers do. What is different?


Unless you are proffessional book critics, or writers yourselves (and preferably even then) LEAVE THE MAN ALONE! This is his *job* you're talking about.

What is the difference between a professional book critic and us? Some pros quite often appear to bandwagon jump, or just want the quote on a book. We dont.


He writes books for people like us (Star Wars fans) to enjoy, why do you have to bash him? If you don't like the books, than don't read them. No one is forcing you to read the man's books, are they?

We dont bas, try reading our posts.



Dude, if you dont like peoples opinions, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ON A MESSAGE BOARD???

 

Hmmm.... for someone who used the phrase "read our posts" you most certainly didn't read mine.

I specifically used the phrase "anyone who has bashed Zahn."

You *repeatedly* used the phrase "I haven't bashed Zahn."

In that case I *obviously* was not talking to you.

Would you like me to draw a diagram? Would that make this easier to comprehend?

Before you go and get all defensive at least make sure that I'm even talking to you.

 

"We dont bash him, he criticise. We put reasons across."

Than I *wasn't talking to you.*

"We have a thing called an opinion. And on a board where opinions are used, we say our opinion. Need a simpler definition?"

I also have a thing called an opinion. What's wrong with me conveying mine? Is yours more valid for some reason? Or perhaps you have decided that you are the head of a commission that has determined which opinions are allowed to be stated and which ones aren't. No, I don't need a simpler definition, thank you for insulting my intelligence though, that would be referred to as a "flame." I do however inquire as to why you don't even listen to yourself. All I was doing was stating *my* opinion. I fail to see the difference.

"It is what reviewers do. What is different?"

The difference is, you are not a professional reviewer or critic. They receive this thing called *training* that makes them *skilled* in their *profession.*

"What is the difference between a professional book critic and us?"

That should be obvious: you *aren't* a professional book critic. That's the difference (again, they are *trained* to do what you are attempting to do.

"Some pros quite often appear to bandwagon jump, or just want the quote on a book. We dont."

And I should care because...

"We dont bas, try reading our posts."

Than I *obviously* wasn't talking to you. Try reading *my* post.

"Dude, if you dont like peoples opinions, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ON A MESSAGE BOARD???"

"Dude" if you dont like *my* opinion, WHY THE H*** ARE *YOU* ON A MESSAGE BOARD???

 

Hmmm.... for someone who used the phrase "read our posts" you most certainly didn't read mine.

I half read it


I specifically used the phrase "anyone who has bashed Zahn."

You *repeatedly* used the phrase "I haven't bashed Zahn."

When I said I, I meant 'nearly everyone in here, all the ones I can think of'. Should have said that


In that case I *obviously* was not talking to you.

Oh I dont know, some call anyone who disagrees bashers


Would you like me to draw a diagram? Would that make this easier to comprehend?

Yes!!! DIAGRAM! DIAGRAM! DIAGRAM!


Before you go and get all defensive at least make sure that I'm even talking to you.

Aye aye skip

 

I also have a thing called an opinion. What's wrong with me conveying mine? Is yours more valid for some reason? Or perhaps you have decided that you are the head of a commission that has determined which opinions are allowed to be stated and which ones aren't. No, I don't need a simpler definition, thank you for insulting my intelligence though, that would be referred to as a "flame." I do however inquire as to why you don't even listen to yourself. All I was doing was stating *my* opinion. I fail to see the difference.

Difference was it sounded to me like you were basically saying anyone who dislikes Zahn should shut up.


"It is what reviewers do. What is different?"

The difference is, you are not a professional reviewer or critic. They receive this thing called *training* that makes them *skilled* in their *profession.*

Trained to make them skilled? I think not. The best critics dont need training. The worst ones arent affected by training.


"What is the difference between a professional book critic and us?"

That should be obvious: you *aren't* a professional book critic. That's the difference (again, they are *trained* to do what you are attempting to do.

What training do they get? Are they told what to like? Made to dislike certain things?


"Some pros quite often appear to bandwagon jump, or just want the quote on a book. We dont."

And I should care because...

It means that our views are better than some critics


"Dude, if you dont like peoples opinions, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ON A MESSAGE BOARD???"

"Dude" if you dont like *my* opinion, WHY THE H*** ARE *YOU* ON A MESSAGE BOARD???

You are one, we are many

I dont mind your opinion. I just hate the B word




Sorry for misreading you

 

G12: However, the one thing he did not say is that "The ysilimari are not a crutch." Factually, they are a crutch to make the Jedi less powerful. Zahn has admitted that powerful Jedi are hard to write. Ysilimari make the Jedi less powerful.

It stands to reason that Zahn made the Jedi less powerful so they're easier to write. That is not some great leap of logic, Grand Moff Fett.

I never said Zahn didn't use the ysalamiri as a crutch. Nor did I ever say he did use them as a crutch.

All I pointed out was that Zahn never says he used them as a crutch.

Genghis, you need to play by your own rules. If you're going to take everything he says literally when it supports your opinion, you have to do the same when it doesn't support your opinion. Zahn never made that claim, therefore it is an assumption on your part that he needed them to be able to write for the Jedi.

Also, just because Zahn has said that super characters are difficult to write whereas other authors haven't, it does not mean that he is alone in this opinion. It just means other authors haven't admitted it.

TZ: They didn't want me to refer in detail to the clone wars which took place before the movies began.

I guess this depends on how you interpret referring in detail, which is left up to LFL. Apparently they didn't feel the date was a big deal. I imagine if Zahn had felt he should include how the Clone Wars started, who was on what side, who won, the major battles and politics behind them, etc., then we would have major details with great potential for continuity error after the prequels. But we didn't get any of that information, and there's no evidence that Zahn tried to sneak anything in, so what is the problem. Any blame for the date (which appears to be the only detail about the CW up for discussion) ultimately lies with LFL/Bantam.

 

"Difference was it sounded to me like you were basically saying anyone who dislikes Zahn should shut up."
Lol, you got me there

"What training do they get? Are they told what to like? Made to dislike certain
Sorry. That's not what I was trying to say, and if I came across that way, I'm sorry.

"Trained to make them skilled? I think not. The best critics dont need training. The worst ones arent affected by training."
things?"
Don't know for sure.

"It means that our views are better than some critics"
Um... no ones views are *ever* "better" than anyone elses. Considering that u asked me "why the hell I'm on a message board" if I "don't like other people's opinions" (anyone who knows me irl can inform you nothing could be farther from the truth) you should probably be well aware of the fact that *everyone* (yes that includes book critics (lol)) has an opinion. No one's is "better." Sorry in advance if that sounded harsh, wasn't trying to be.

"You are one, we are many"
Ok... and that makes my opinion less valid because...

"I dont mind your opinion. I just hate the B word"
Well, if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't being attached to you .
I didn't mind your opinion, but I still got the "IF YOU DON'T LIKE OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS WHY THE H*** ARE YOU ON A MESSAGE BOARD???" so I guess we're even .

"Sorry for misreading you"
No, I'm sorry for being too harsh.

 

Unless you are proffessional book critics, or writers yourselves (and preferably even then) LEAVE THE MAN ALONE! This is his *job* you're talking about.

Jedi_Anakin_Solo, I'm going to disagree here. I'll admit bashing has no place, but saying we can't critique simply because we aren't authors ourselves is wrong.

That's like saying I can't say a movie is bad because I don't make them, or I can't say an actor is bad because I don't act, or I can't criticize a band because I'm not a musician (actually, I am, but that's beside the point ). By this same argument, I'm not qualified to say any of these people are good actors/authors/etc, either.

I'll agree that without a certain amount of knowledge and experience, people should be careful of how and why they criticize, but it's still equally valid for many people to have qualified judgement of works of art (books, movies, etc.). If a person knows what he/she likes, and can offer good reasons why without resorting just to "cause it's cool," and is open to input from those with more or different experiences, then I'm okay with that.

 

I suppose this has been covered already someplacein the past eight pages, and . . no . . I don't dominate the lit forum like some posters around here, but I just had to put in my two cents.

It seems to me that Zahn HoT duology were meant to be bookends to the Bantam SW run. With that in mind, this morning I settled in to my breakfast nook with a peice of toast and cup of hot coffee and opened Vision of the Future to page 167-168 (hardback version). For those who don't remember, this is the passage where Mara rebukes Mr. Skywalker for his mistakes over the preceding 10 years. It soon became obvious to me that Mara's dialogue was merely a facade for Mr. Zahns veiws.

So what issues did Mr. Zahn speake to?

1. Continuing to allow the Jedi Acadamy on yavin after a powerful dark force presence was detected there.

2. Not neutralizing Kyp when he began to exhibit darkside tendancies.

3. Not taking precausions against kidnapping of Leia's children

4. Declaring himself a jedi master after 10 years

5. Whether or not the Emperor could actually be "Reborn"

6. General philosophy of the force. Specifically, Mr. Zahn views the force as something that most Jedi should use in moderation, lest they become drunk with the power.

I have been visiting the boards since 1999. The aforementioned 6 issues have been addressed numerous times in numerous threads. The point is that many readers have seen the 6 issues as problems with the Dark Horse/bantam run. Obviously Zahn chose to address these issues in his final novel . . . and many readers rejoiced. The fact that Mr. Zahn even decided to reference the prior novels in VotF affirmed the existence of a continuity that many posters here find so precious.

IMO, yes I did say, IMO, Mr. Zahn is a cornerstone of the SW universe and should be praised for his work.

Thank you . .. and goodnight.

 

I've discovered that the matter of "opinion" is actually one of the funniest things to watch for on these message boards. Everyone claims to be listening and analyzing the opinions of those against them, but all they're really trying to do is foist their own opinion off on everyone else. It makes for some great arguments to watch, and I've been part of a few myself, so I'm certainly not immune to it. You would think that since we weren't meeting face to face and talking that we would generally be open and accepting of everyone else's ideas, but that is clearly not the case. These boards are a bigger forum for ridicule and slander than any debate I've ever had in real life, and I've had quite a few, over touchy subjects. Ah well.

JMA

 

The issue that mara addressed about emperor reborn was just her Oppinion, it is not valid in any way or shape or form. There is too much printed EU that talks about the emperor that contradicts her "oppinion", and shows that palpatine was telling the truth.

 

It has been presented in this thread that because Timothy Zahn said an interview that it is difficult to write all powerful characters such as Superman that this therefore is an absolutement indictment of his lack of writing ability.


However, an alternate interpretation of Timpothy Zahn's remarks could be that he is merely referring to an axiom generally held to be true by most fiction writers: all powerful characters = no conflict. No conflict = no story.

Let's look at what Orson Scott Card has to say on the subject:

"With fantasy, however, anything is possible. And where anything can happen, who cares what actually occurs? I mean, if your hero can get into trouble and then wish his way out, so what? Why worry about him? Why care?

"The truth is that good fantasies carefully limit the magic that is possible.

"In fantasy, if magic has no limitations, the characters are omnipotent gods, anything can happen, and so there's no story. There have to be strict limits on magic."

How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy, p 23, 31.

And for a comment that sounds very close to what Timothy Zahn said, here's Joel Rosenberg:

"Fiction - mainstream or fantasy - is about people having problems. Magic is one way to solve those problems, but if unrestrainedly powerful magic can solve all problems, then there is no problem, and no story. If you really can wave your magic wand and make everything fine, then what's your problem? And where's your book? And if this is a series, well, then where's the sequel going to come from?

Think about Superman. Double-talk about growing up under a sun on a high gravity planet aside, Superman's powers are basically magic. And he quickly became too powerful - not only was he able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, outrace a locomotive, but he became able to move the Earth, and do all sorts of handy things.

So enter kryptonite. Now, at least sometimes, he's got a problem to worry about, and a vulnerability to drive some dramatic possibilities. Just as there wouldn't be a story about Achilles if he didn't have a weak spot on his heel, there wouldn't have been Superman without kryptonite. Otherwise, there's no problem, and without a problem, there's no story.

It probably makes sense, when putting together a magic system for a stand-alone novel, to think clearly about the limitations you want to place on that magic, but for an ongoing fantasy series, it's vital, and you'll only be able to invent a bit of kryptonite here and there."

Rosenberg then goes on to detail his character Ellegon, an invicible dragon.

"As a result, if I want to or need to put my characters in a situation that they can't get out of, I've got to come up with a reason - a good reason - that Ellegon can't simply drop out of the sky, flame any and all of the opposition, and lift them out.

"I've introduced dragonbane - a plant whose extract is poisonous to magical metabolisms - but that can only go so far, and plotting around Ellegon's abilities doesn't get any easier as the years go by."

"The Fantasy Series: Tips, Pitfalls...and Joys," Science Fiction and Fantasy Writer's Sourcebook

Therefore, the above passages and Timothy Zahn's comments could be interpreted to mean that all powerful characters are difficult to write not because of a lack of talent, but because all powerful characters are inherently weak creations from a dramatic viewpoint. If your character can immediately solve all problems with a wave of his hand, then there is no conflict; and if there is no conflict, then there is no story. Even the most talented author would find it difficult to tell a compelling story when there is no room for conflict.

(thanks to SGB for letting me raid her writing reference library!)

 

JediMasterAaron:

...Everyone claims to be listening and analyzing the opinions of those against them, but all they're really trying to do is foist their own opinion off on everyone else....

That's because people find it's far more important to be right than it is to reach a mutual conclusion.

My wife says it's a male thing.

 

That's because people find it's far more important to be right than it is to reach a mutual conclusion.
My wife says it's a male thing.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about! The male has a tendancie for the more agressive, ADVERSARIAL approach to argument.

a)Masculaine= adversarial= aruing to win

b)Feminine= consensual= arguing towards agreement

c)Mastadge= consensual approach

Thus: if "b" is equal to "c" and not "a" then essentialy, Mastadge is a girl?

 

Thus: if "b" is equal to "c" and not "a" then essentialy, Mastadge is a girl?


No, he is an 18.4 year old human male. I have seen his picture, know his real name, and he likes sailing.