Once more unto the fray...

I was just reading the thread about "How would Thrawn handle the Vong?", and I am finally going to state my peace & try to make a few of you (you know who you are) get off the "I hate Thrawn cause I hate Timothy Zahn" band wagon.

In many of the responses I have seen regarding him, it is said "he only won half victories". Gee, maybe if you had only about 1/80th of what the opposing side had, you too might swoop in, complete your main objective, and swoop out. If you notice, Thrawn's strategies NEVER (except once) relied on solely destroying every NR ship at a battle. He had goals to achieve and achieved them. If nothing else, it drove the NR crazy that he didn't fight traditionally - ie staying to the last ship.

The one time he DID want to crush the rebellion utterly, was at Bilbringi. Now for those of you who can't clear this up, let me. REREAD THE BATTLE. Until the moment Thrawn dies and Lando pulls that BS stunt (fair play to Lando), the battle is clearly going to end with the Empire as the victor. Heavy losses sure, but they were going to pull it out. In fact, I go so far as to insinuate if Pellaeon had stayed to duke it out, there was a chance they may have won regardless, but I digress.


And lastly - I am throwing this one in with one very specific person in mind; Genghis. We know how much you LOVE Zahn (slight inclinations of sarcasm as wafting in your direction). That's your right and so be it. But how can you allow yourself to hate a character who clearly deserves your respect, if not your admiration, just because you don't like the guy who wrote him into the universe? I know you've told us all more times than I can recall how poor of a character he is, but where's your proof?

After all that, I proudly say that Zahn or no Zahn, Thrawn would have sent the Vong packing, hence why Lucas wanted him dead. Wouldn't be much of a darkness if Thrawn squashed it under his boot, would it? I know we're going to have some bickering - there's just no pleasing some people - but I hope at least maybe I have helped someone open their eyes in this highly anti-Thrawn forum.

 

<JB goes to the fridge and takes out a 6-pack of Stella Artois.

<He then searches and locates the number for Domino's Pizza and sits back to watch the fireworks display that will inevtiably occur...>

 

Think I shall start quoting


I am finally going to state my peace & try to make a few of you (you know who you are) get off the "I hate Thrawn cause I hate Timothy Zahn" band wagon.


For starters, one of the reasons I dislike Zahn's writings is because of this two dimensional Ubercharacter.


The one time he DID want to crush the rebellion utterly, was at Bilbringi. Now for those of you who can't clear this up, let me. REREAD THE BATTLE. Until the moment Thrawn dies and Lando pulls that BS stunt (fair play to Lando), the battle is clearly going to end with the Empire as the victor. Heavy losses sure, but they were going to pull it out. In fact, I go so far as to insinuate if Pellaeon had stayed to duke it out, there was a chance they may have won regardless, but I digress.


I agree with Timetales:
"At Bilbringi, the Republic and smuggler forces are starting to win, and word of Mount Tantiss's fall reaches them -- just as Rukh (Thrawn's Noghri bodyguard) stabs Thrawn through the heart. Pellaeon has no choice -- he orders the Imperial fleet to retreat. "


And lastly - I am throwing this one in with one very specific person in mind; Genghis. We know how much you LOVE Zahn (slight inclinations of sarcasm as wafting in your direction). That's your right and so be it. But how can you allow yourself to hate a character who clearly deserves your respect, if not your admiration, just because you don't like the guy who wrote him into the universe? I know you've told us all more times than I can recall how poor of a character he is, but where's your proof?

HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION! LIVE WITH IT!

Oh yeah, I loooooove this character who sits there and knows everything, he must take sooooo long to write. YAWN!


After all that, I proudly say that Zahn or no Zahn, Thrawn would have sent the Vong packing, hence why Lucas wanted him dead

Zahn killed him, not Lucas


but I hope at least maybe I have helped someone open their eyes in this highly anti-Thrawn forum

Not really, you gave two opinions and then moaned at Genghis



Oh, hi Ben! Found DJ yet?

 

It wasn't in Ottakars in Basildon and they sometimes have stuff early!

I'll let you know if Murder One has it this week, they're notorious for getting stuff early.

Now, I'll just lie back abd enjoy the display...

Jedi Ben

 

isn't Murder One a TV programme?


Leicester only has WH Smiths and two Waterstones I believe. None yet

 

I will defend Zahn as long as i exist.

In my opinion without him, there would be no New Jedi Order, because most of his characters have made apperess.

 

Cpt_Pellaeon...

No no no no no!

I love Zahn, I love his writing, I love his characters.
BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES, AND YOU CAN'T run around trying to convert people!

Look, Ghengis is just stating his OPINION. He states is forcefully, backs it up with a lot of evidence, but it still is just his OPINION. Everyone has different opinions. They are all free to post here. What you said, is an opinion, with some untrue stuff mixed in there (Zahn did kill Thrawn. He had lived his time as a character, and killing him was a good decision on Zahn's part, IMO).

Please can we not post like this?

 

I don't think Zahn's characters are two-dimensional "Ãœbercharacters". Each of them is very complex person actually, even Thrawn. They all have interesting personalities and they make mistakes and they acknowledge those mistakes.

The most one-dimensional person in EU is reborn Emperor. He keeps going same circle all around: die, born again, build more super-weapons, screw up, die again, born again... Even Waru is more interesting.

Well back to Zahn. He's stories are actually most realistic of any SW stories. There are no super weapons, there is no all mighty Empire (even with unlimited supply of clones Empire didn't have enough ships). He created universe that would have worked. But then the Dark Empire shattered that future. I think that if Dark Empire would have happened chronologically before Thrawn it wouldn't have been so bad. But now it ruined everything Zahn made. TTT and DE almost seem to be placed in different universes. And given choice I would choose Zahn's universe over DE-universe.

I would continue but I'm afraid I used all my english already.

 

Ahhhh......... ya.

 

I was just reading the thread about "How would Thrawn handle the Vong?", and I am finally going to state my peace & try to make a few of you (you know who you are) get off the "I hate Thrawn cause I hate Timothy Zahn" band wagon.

Speaking for only myself, I don't hate anyone. I dislike Zahn for what he has said in interviews about other aurhors and some as being 'liars and cannivers' regarding Mara not being the only Emperor's hand, which she was not. Second, as ReaperFett said, Thrawn was a very two-dimensional character who knew far too much and Zahn's methodology for having him determine weaknesses in art was, IMHO, unconvincing.

In many of the responses I have seen regarding him, it is said "he only won half victories". Gee, maybe if you had only about 1/80th of what the opposing side had, you too might swoop in, complete your main objective, and swoop out.

Actually, he didn't really win anything, and Zahn wrote the New Republic of having next to nothing also.

If you notice, Thrawn's strategies NEVER (except once) relied on solely destroying every NR ship at a battle. He had goals to achieve and achieved them. If nothing else, it drove the NR crazy that he didn't fight traditionally - ie staying to the last ship.

Since when is that a traditional fight?

The one time he DID want to crush the rebellion utterly, was at Bilbringi. Now for those of you who can't clear this up, let me. REREAD THE BATTLE. Until the moment Thrawn dies and Lando pulls that BS stunt (fair play to Lando), the battle is clearly going to end with the Empire as the victor. Heavy losses sure, but they were going to pull it out. In fact, I go so far as to insinuate if Pellaeon had stayed to duke it out, there was a chance they may have won regardless, but I digress.

Then the fault is clearly Pellaeon's since if victory was so completely obvious, then he should have stayed and won.

And lastly - I am throwing this one in with one very specific person in mind; Genghis. We know how much you LOVE Zahn (slight inclinations of sarcasm as wafting in your direction). That's your right and so be it. But how can you allow yourself to hate a character who clearly deserves your respect, if not your admiration, just because you don't like the guy who wrote him into the universe? I know you've told us all more times than I can recall how poor of a character he is, but where's your proof?

Far be it for me to speak for Genghis, however, Thrawn is not deserving of admiration and respect. First, he is a criminal representing an unlawful power (the Empire). The Empire was an illegal tyrannical government that had subjugated the galaxy through terror and fear- anyone supporting that government is undeserving of any respect, much less admiration.

Second, Thrawn was two-dimensional. We knew next to nothing about him, and this so-called mystery hampered the character. He wasn't interesting, he never had several facets to his personality that made him complex, he was cruel, vindictive and evil. You can 'respect' and 'admire' Vader, because we knew a lot about him and we will learn more and understand why he turned to evil and became such a tragic character. We had no benefits of Thrawn's motivations or past to flesh out his personality, thus he is two dimensional.

After all that, I proudly say that Zahn or no Zahn, Thrawn would have sent the Vong packing, hence why Lucas wanted him dead.

Post proof or retract!

Wouldn't be much of a darkness if Thrawn squashed it under his boot, would it? I know we're going to have some bickering - there's just no pleasing some people - but I hope at least maybe I have helped someone open their eyes in this highly anti-Thrawn forum.

Yeah, let's replace the 'darkness' brought by the Vong by the 'darkness' of the Empire. Good thinking.

 

If it weren't for Zahn I probably wouldnt be reading all this lit stuff

 

This thread is a joke, right? ?

 

That was my thought initially. However, when someone puts it on my shoulders that since I (or anyone else) dislike Zahn/Thrawn/whatever, that it's our fault, I take issue with it.

 

Well, before I can take any issue with it, I've got to take it seriously. ?

I don't think Cpt_Pellaeon meant anyone to take him or this thread seriously from the way he posted. ?

 

Must we have another thread devoted to this? Hasn't this has been beaten to death?


This thread is a joke, right?

One can only wish.
Whatever, time for my two cents:

As ReaperFett said, Thrawn was a very two-dimensional character who knew far too
much and Zahn's methodology for having him determine weaknesses in art was, IMHO,
unconvincing.

Perhaps, but when did two-dimensional equal bad character? There are plenty of
characters that, while not being multi-faceted, are still interesting to read. Heck, even Superman is gulty of this-- so much so that it?s usually when writers try to throw in that extra monkywrench that he fails miserbly.(Which incidentally is the state I believe the NJO to be in) So the real issue here is you simply believe Zahn did not write creatively. That he did not use this two-dimensional character to it?s full potential, if he ever had any. You dislike Zahn, not Thrawn persay. Or at the very least, if someone else had written
Thrawn he may have grown on you.

I don't think Zahn's characters are two-dimensional "Ãœbercharacters". Each of them is very complex person actually, even Thrawn. They all have interesting personalities and they make mistakes and they acknowledge those mistakes.

Simalarly, I don?t think mistakes or a kink in your plans equal a multi-faceted character. In the same way that there are many things that comprise who we are, this should be reflected upon fictional characters in order for them to be three-dimensional. There?s conflict with self... almost a kind of multiple personality disorder where different facets of the gem as a whole are catching the light as it is being spun. I think Orson Wells put it
best in Citizen Kane: (paraphraseing) ?No, no word can explain a man. He?s like a jigsaw puzzle and maybe Rosebud was just another piece... the missing piece.?

Thrawn is not deserving of admiration and respect. First, he is a criminal representing an unlawful power (the Empire). The Empire was an illegal tyrannical government that had subjugated the galaxy through terror and fear- anyone supporting that government is undeserving of any respect, much less admiration.

Admiration and respect, I belive, derive from a place unassociated or inhibited by the
influence of morals, ethics, or stance in politics. That is to say, I can respect many people I am moraly apposed to or simply do not agree with. As far as being a seedy character, well I?m sure people would lose their high esteem (along with their lunch) of OUR generals and other military leaders if they could see the blood of hundreds that drip from their hands. Yet they grace our halls of fame and of history.

Second, Thrawn was two-dimensional. We knew next to nothing about him, and this
so-called mystery hampered the character. He wasn't interesting, he never had several
facets to his personality that made him complex, he was cruel, vindictive and evil. You can 'respect' and 'admire' Vader, because we knew a lot about him and we will learn more and understand why he turned to evil and became such a tragic character. We had no benefits of Thrawn's motivations or past to flesh out his personality, thus he is two dimensional.

By this theory, in time, Thrawn can still win you over. All we need is a little backstory and voila, got a fan. I?m not so sure, too many years have passed since the release of TTT and the anti-Thrawn camp have harbored too much resentment for such a thing to be possible. Thus, it was not the innate mystery that ruined him for readers. I?m sure most people found the mystery to be intriguing and among his highlights. Again, the issue is simply that readers thought he was poorly written and thus, their beef is with Zahn, not
Thrawn.

I think that if Dark Empire would have happened chronologically before Thrawn it
wouldn't have been so bad. But now it ruined everything Zahn made. TTT and DE almost
seem to be placed in different universes. And given choice I would choose Zahn's uni

 

Perhaps, but when did two-dimensional equal bad character?

When said character is the one of the main ones in the story. When a character?s actions are the only thing that makes a character interesting, I have a problem, especially when those actions are unconvincing.

There are plenty of characters that, while not being multi-faceted, are still interesting to read.

This is almost a contradiction here, but anyway, I see what you mean- Sex Machine from Dusk ?Til Dawn was interesting, well, entertaining.

Heck, even Superman is gulty of this-- so much so that it??s usually when writers try to throw in that extra monkywrench that he fails miserbly.(Which incidentally is the state I believe the NJO to be in)

My interest and like of Superman stems from WB?s cartoon series along with Batman. I never liked the comic, he had more depth in the cartoon series.

So the real issue here is you simply believe Zahn did not write creatively. That he did not use this two-dimensional character to it??s full potential, if he ever had any.

Pretty significant issue, I would say.

You dislike Zahn, not Thrawn persay. Or at the very least, if someone else had written
Thrawn he may have grown on you.

No, I dislike both. I dislike the hype around Thrawn, partially because he?s a poorly conceived of villain and partially because he isn?t interesting. Because in five novels we have learned next to nothing about him. And Zahn is capable of writing creatively, his non-Star Wars books are very enjoyable.

Simalarly, I don??t think mistakes or a kink in your plans equal a multi-faceted character.

I?ll let RF field that one.

In the same way that there are many things that comprise who we are, this should be reflected upon fictional characters in order for them to be three-dimensional.

Which we never saw in Thrawn and by and large my point over all. I cannot like or ?get into? a character with whom I know so little about. When there is no meat to a character, villain or hero or otherwise, I lose interest.

There?s conflict with self...

Which we saw none of in Thrawn.

almost a kind of multiple personality disorder where different facets of the gem as a whole are catching the light as it is being spun.

Conflict of self does not imply any sort of MPD, rather one?s consciousness weighing factors with regards to a premise and the inherent choices and consequence for said choices. It?s called internal conflict, and we saw none of that in Thrawn- no sense of failing, or whether he was doing the right thing or anything that might make him intersting.

I think Orson Wells put it best in Citizen Kane: (paraphraseing) ??No, no word can explain a man. He??s like a jigsaw puzzle and maybe Rosebud was just another piece... the missing piece.??

Yes, that?s all fine and good, except with Thrawn, we didn?t even have the box.

Admiration and respect, I believe, derive from a place unassociated or inhibited by the
influence of morals, ethics, or stance in politics.

To you, perhaps. To me, however, I view things differently. It might even say that in a book. Doesn?t mean it?s right. So that also means that it?s okay to respect and admire butchers Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung or Hitler, because since we don?t view them through the filters of morals or ethics, but take another route? I don?t think so.

This is like those people who tell us that economics have to morality or are ?amoral?- having no ethical or moral leanings, meanwhile they?re screwing countless people and Enron is ?just one of those things?.

That is to say, I can respect many people I am moraly apposed to or simply do not agree with.

Well, I guess I can?t do that. I guess I find it difficult to respect such people, though it often does cause me to question my own morality and ethics, which is always a good thing. Again, something I never saw in Thrawn.

As far as being a seedy character, well I??m sure people would lose their high esteem (

 

I stand corrected. oh... mostly.

I cannot like or ?get into? a character with whom I know so little about. When there is no meat to a character, villain or hero or otherwise, I lose interest.

I thought it was because he appeared invincible. (See below qoute)

It?s called internal conflict, and we saw none of that in Thrawn- no sense of failing, or whether he was doing the right thing or anything that might make him intersting.

So I wonder, is it in good faith to conclude that creating a character that is always right, a bad idea-- no matter the case? What I mean is, must a character be wrong, at least some of the time, to suceed? If so, why haven't more authors caught on? Essentialy, can it be done or is it a one way ticket to Jeterville?

Well, since I have had 10 years to think about it, unlikely.

My point exactly. After ten years with only one authors rendition of the character, your pretty much turned off for life. But let's say a backstory was given, say pre-ANH era, were we discover the flaws of a character striving to make it to the top in a xenophobic society. Portray him in the Dracula tradition of an outsider trying to be adopted within a foreign culture. If you did not have your 10 year Zahn reservations, could this possibly turn you on to Thrawn?

Mysteries are meant to be revealed and they never were.

I disagree, Boba Fett for example, should never of had to undergo the Jaster Mereel blemish. What do you think has kept fans interested in Wolverine all of these years? (Though, I must admit he is one of the most diversified characters I have ever come across.) Yet, with all of the years behind him and all of the different author's takes on him, there is still alot left untold and I'm willing to bet that there will always be.

 

I thought it was because he appeared invincible. (See below qoute)

Well, he sorta was.

So I wonder, is it in good faith to conclude that creating a character that is always right, a bad idea-- no matter the case? What I mean is, must a character be wrong, at least some of the time, to suceed? If so, why haven't more authors caught on? Essentialy, can it be done or is it a one way ticket to Jeterville?

Well, Corran is usually always right and I like him...?

Seriously, it just Thrawn was always right, unconvincingly, he so cleverly out guessed all the greatest minds in the New Republic navy, unconvincingly. He made leaps in logic that would confound Oppenheimer.

My point exactly. After ten years with only one authors rendition of the character, your pretty much turned off for life. But let's say a backstory was given, say pre-ANH era, were we discover the flaws of a character striving to make it to the top in a xenophobic society. Portray him in the Dracula tradition of an outsider trying to be adopted within a foreign culture. If you did not have your 10 year Zahn reservations, could this possibly turn you on to Thrawn?

Actually, I don't care much for the Chiss either, so I would have no real interest in the story. That said, however, if anyone decided to go against the great and might Zahn, and flesh out his background, I might give it a try.

I disagree, Boba Fett for example, should never of had to undergo the Jaster Mereel blemish.

I don't like Boba Fett all that much, either.

What do you think has kept fans interested in Wolverine all of these years?

Yes, but Wolverine was interesting enough without his back story. His over protectiveness of young members of the X-Men, his friendships with people like Spider-Man, his affair with Jean Grey, plus there have been stories since he appeared in 1975 that revealed more and more about his past.

(Though, I must admit he is one of the most diversified characters I have ever come across.) Yet, with all of the years behind him and all of the different author's takes on him, there is still alot left untold and I'm willing to bet that there will always be.

I gave up reading the X-Men after Mags ripped the adamantium out his skeleton. I have a personal wish to bitch-slap Clairemont for doing it, too.

 

Let the slapping commence.

his affair with Jean Grey

Perhaps "Mitty" should have an affair?

I don't like Boba Fett all that much, either.

How 'bout that guy they call Luke Skywalker... you like Luke right? Seriously, no Fett? Well, who knows maybe AOTC can take care of that. Though I doubt it. He'll probably be all cutesy and ask his pop to show him the trade.
(*Now son, bounty huntin's a tough life. There's gonna be times when you just wanna take off your helmet and cry your eyes out but you better keep that sucker on. And above all never, NEVER, let anyone sneak up behind you while you got your jet pack on! That bugger'll send you shootin through the air faster than a pod racer. Dismissed*)

 

LoL...Paranoid_Ani...

I really dont feel like doing all the quoteing and the italics...im too tired right now. Its true, that some of Thrawns logical leaps always seemed a little implausible to me. He was never my favorite thing about TTT, but I, (at least until corrupted by everyone here ) felt that he was one-dimensional sort-of intentionally...we never actually get inside his head. We only see him throught the eyes of one other person, Peallon (one of the MOST underrated characters in the EU, IMO) so he is going to appear one-dimensional, because Thrawn was only ever seen by this one guy who thought he was absolutely amazing. So his opinions, obviously, color how he is portrayed.

Did that make sense at all ?

 

He is not an 'evil' character at all.

Pure unmitigated, unadulterated BS. Full stop.

Seriously, no Fett? Well, who knows maybe AOTC can take care of that. Though I doubt it. He'll probably be all cutesy and ask his pop to show him the trade.

Actually, I see that kid and I want to smack him.

(*Now son, bounty huntin's a tough life. There's gonna be times when you just wanna take off your helmet and cry your eyes out but you better keep that sucker on. And above all never, NEVER, let anyone sneak up behind you while you got your jet pack on! That bugger'll send you shootin through the air faster than a pod racer. Dismissed*)

At least it would be funny.

 

yes, it did make sense Mara. Sorry to be so short on you but I'm just so damn... tired. Writting... this(*yawn*)... damn psyc paper. (snaps to attention) Wait...why am I spilling my life story to you? Anyway, yeah I must admit (why does everyone abbreviate this as IMO?) only seeing Thrawn through Pellean's eyes sure did colour the reader's perspective on him. I bet if we saw him through Rukh's eyes we would have grown with him in a way. First we would have respected him, then grown suspicious and finally be out... for... blood...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz