Soldier for the Empire and Darksabre

I scored today. Bought Darksabre first hand, then, in search of miscellanious stuff, I wandered into a 'op-shop' and found Soldier for the Empire graphic novel! This is cool...I unwittingly borrowed Rebel Agent from the library yesterday, so once I finish SFTE, I'll read it!
Also, did we really need to see Morgan's head on a pike?
Btw, I keep hearing reports Darksabre sucks. Does it?
And is there any reason Jerec is eyeless?

 

Considering Morgan's head on a pike is a Story element of JK, I assume it was considered important to show a pic of it.

 

I personally don't feel that Darksaber was a bad book. In fact, I enjoyed it. But there are plenty of folks in here who don't much care for Anderson. Funny as I've seen many in the past say how he sucks and then say how the YJK books that he co-wrote are great. Be that as it may, I give you my traditional piece of advice. Do not take our opinions (our being everyone in the forum who will give you what we think of a book) as gospel. Read the book for yourself and make up your own opinion. Perhaps you'll hate it. or perhaps you'll find that you really like it.

 

IMO, Darksaber rocks. It's even closer to Lucas' vision of Star Wars than the JAT.

In fact, it must be one of my favorites books !!!

 

DS is pretty good... even if it's KJA's work. The Hutts are hilarious... And all the painful ways to kill this one person? cool.

Ara
(Hasn't skipped school the entire day.. odd. feels definitely odd)

 

I didn't like Jedi Academy trilogy too much, but I thought Darksabre was fairly good. I think later novels such as Planet of Twilight, Crystal Star, New Rebellion, etc. is what really started the downwards trend. Some of those books weren't necessarily bad, but the same old plot was getting old by that point.

Bruce

 

its only behind Adumar and the Han trilogy for me. Like Xizor said, very Lucas-esque

 

Which Han trilogy? The Han Solo Trilogy, or the older trilogy titled The Han Solo Adventures. The newer trilogy is the Paradise Snare, the Hutt Gambit, and Rebel Dawn while the older trilogy is Han Solo at Star's End, Han Solo's Revenge, and Han Solo and the Lost Legacy.

 

It has never been stated for certain why Jerec is eyeless. Obviously, it is possible this was the result of a birth defect, or wound. However, while most sources list him as human (Dark Side Sourcebook, etc), others hint he is near-human (GoF: Spore). He may be a member of the Mirakula. According to TotJ: Dark Lords of the Sith, the Mirakula are an eyeless breed of humans. These "people, many of whom become Jedi, see only in the Force." Shoanes Culu is a Jedi of Mirakula decent.

 

He is indeed Human, according to his bio.

Still, you must consider that the term "near-human" is flawed terminalogy. That term actually refers back to Human Evolutionary ancestors, that haven't evolved to level of sentience to be considered human.

All species evolved from primates would be human, but not necesserilly the same Human Species. For instance the common humans are most likely "homo sapiens". The others would be some other form of Homo ______, neanderthal, erectus etc,etc."

Now that we know he is standard human from the Darkside Sourcebook, we still don't know if he lost his eyes in an accident or birth defect, mirikula, etc, or when he lost them.

So anyone one calling another species of human, "near-human" are falling for, and using imperial-like rascist remarks, and doctrine.

 

No, the term "near-human" in Star wars refers to an offshoot of the human race. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Mirakula are one such example. In every way they are human, except they have no eyes, so some xenobiologists label this group as near-human. The line between what constitutes a race and what constitues a species can be quite thin at times, but obviously baseline humans have eyes.

 

They might use that misuse of the term in star wars, but the authors completly missed the correct terminology. Just because they do, does not make it right use of english.

To even argue, the use of flawed english is right, is ignorance.

Infact I've noticed that newer material in WOTC, has been shying away from the use of near-human and other misuses of language of the old material, and now using Divergent Humans, or Human Species, or such terms to describe races that are humans, but not baseline human stock.

 

Sorry, knight, the more recent. Not read the older few yet, but want to

 

You should Reaper,

Both (Han and Lando) series are pure Star Wars entertainment. Excellent all the way around (unless of course you're looking for a char which doesn't appear, I suppose).

 

Hey Val, I think it's time to call your optometrist:

SW Gamer #5, Page 91: Noth, Male Near Human

SW Gamer #5, Page 108: "Genetic sampling has recently confirmed that the Chiss are near-humans, though their evolutionary divergence from baseline Humanity has not been pinpointed in time or space.

Dark Side Sourcebook, Page 88: Aurra Sing, Female near-Human

Dark Side Sourcebook, Page 94: Lord Hethrir: Male near-Human


Etc, etc. In the field of anthropology, there is no such term as "near-human." There are hominids, anthropoids, but no humanoids or near-humans. Those are primarily science fiction terms. "Sub-human" is sometimes used to describe such species as H. erectus, H. habilis, etc, but not "near-human."

 

I didn't say the gave up all inccorect use of near-human, just that they started using more earth based anthropology terms, such as divergence and human species. But there is no-way to correct them from there continued infractions.

"Etc, etc. In the field of anthropology, there is no such term as "near-human." There are hominids, anthropoids, but no humanoids or near-humans. Those are primarily science fiction terms. "Sub-human" is sometimes used to describe such species as H. erectus, H. habilis, etc, but not "near-human.""

You would be wrong:


"Living and extinct human beings and their near-human ancestors are called ?hominids? and belong to the Hominidae family of primates. They should not be confused with ?hominoids,? which belong to the Hominoidea family of primates and include apes and humans. Scientists theorize that the human and ape lines branched off from a common ancestor 8 million to 6 million years ago."

"To be fair, all the promoters of the Declaration want is kindness to apes, but they are trying ham-fistedly to rewire our ethical perceptions according to scientific calculations so as to justify a simple goal of animal welfare. They know not what they do. Ape chartist Dr. Jared Diamond says that human beings share 98.4% of our DNA with chimps, and the campaign asserts the near-humanity of apes by such measurements. Well, DNA isn?t everything. As every schoolboy used to know, diamonds share 100% of the constituents of charcoal. There is no chemical difference between them, but a difference in the stacking of the atoms gives them far different properties. The difference between man and ape is not reducible to test tube analysis."

"Paleolithic period or Old Stone Age,the earliest period of human development and the longest phase of mankind's history. It is approximately coextensive with the Pleistocene geologic epoch, beginning about 2 million years ago and ending in various places between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, when it was succeeded by the Mesolithic period. By far the most outstanding feature of the Paleolithic period was the evolution of the human species from an apelike creature, or near-human, to true Homo sapiens (see human evolution). This development was exceedingly slow and continued through the three successive divisions of the period, the Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic. The most abundant remains of Paleolithic cultures are a variety of stone tools whose distinct characteristics provide the basis for a system of classification containing several toolmaking traditions or industries."

"Dr. Hank Wesselman is an anthropologist who does field research with an international group of scientists, exploring East Africa's Rift Valley in search of answers to the mystery of human origins. He is currently working out in the thorny deserts of the Afar tribal lands in Ethiopia with an expedition headed by Dr. Tim White of the University of California at Berkley. " It may be that we have found something of truly great importance," he says with enthusiasm. "Our international team has uncovered about 50% of a fossilized skeleton of a near-human individual who lived 4.5 million years ago. I say `near-human" because this discovery is more than a million years older than the famous Lucy find and much more primitive. It may well prove to be the `missing link' that Charles Darwin predicted would eventually be discovered."

more use of the term

Considering I don't have my anthropology book to give even more quotes on the term Near-human(returned it back to the college I was going too), but those terms are not created by scifi, and have there main uses in Anthropolical studies,were they were created. If I cared to look I could find you even more quotes.




"Main Entry: hu·man·oid
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&-"noid, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Date: 1918
: having human form or characteristics <humanoid dentition> <humanoid robots>
- humanoid noun"

Considering I've heard

 

Near-human and humanoid may be used as adjectives in anthropological discussions, but are not technical terms. Even in the dictionary, they give a sci-fi example. In SW iterature, "humanoid" has a much more broad meaning than "near-Human," anyway. Krayn was described as humanoid in Jedi Quest, and he was obviously no relation to humans in the comic. Rudy the Cragmoloid was also described as humanoid in Gamer 6, and he's a sort of elephant.

 

You won't even find Near-human, except in antrholopogical glosseries, since it's only term used in anthropology, and has it's only defined meaning. Which I've quoted a half a dozen times, if you care to remain ignorant I can't stop you.

Subhuman on the other hand, is in the dictionary and refers to Humans that live less than human. Living in squalor, and trash, and starvation. But sometimes is used in the same way as Near-human's definition, in anthropoligical books, as term used for ape-like ancestors to humans.

If you keep on continueing to use the incorrect definition of Near-human, all your doing is saying that all other humans are inferior, and less-sentient than Base-line humans. But he who am I to stop you continue to live in ignorance.

I'm still wondering why you keep on bringing up humanoid? I haven't been even discussing that term. Humanoid is so undefined it refers to anything that walks on 2 legs, has a torso, and a head. That can cover practically anything. It's not used in anthropology but rarely, and I haven't brought it up.

 

"You won't even find Near-human, except in antrholopogical glosseries, since it's only term used in anthropology, and has it's only defined meaning."

Excuse me, You can find the term "near-Human" outside of an antropology textbook, like in Gamer 5 and the Dark Side Sourcebook, and probably in half of all Star Wars novels ever published. And you are saying I live in ignorance?

 

Considering the fact that the authors totally Fudged up on there anthropoligical studies, and misinterpreted an evolutionary term incorrectly whose basis comes from the real world anthropology(to use as an anthropolical term in the fictional world). Doesn't make you following after them, correct. It's like the blind following the blind. If ignorance exists, and someone follows after the same ignorance, the person would end up just as ignorant.

 

Val is merely trying to tell you that the authors have used the term incorrctly.

He's given an ample amount of proof to support his argument.

Why can't you just consider what he has to say?

 

The authors didn't mess anything up, they extapolated on what scientific knowledge we have today. Let's say that, just as Homo sapiens exist in SW, they had H. erectus as an ancestor on whatever world they originated on. After these humans were somehow transported to the Chiss homeworld, their skin got bluer and their eyes got redder. The Chiss evolutionary tree would look like this:

H. erectus -> "Normal" Humans (H. sapiens) -> Chiss

A man is as related to his son as he is his own father. Since both H. erectus and the Chiss are equidistant from "normal" humans, both can be accurately described as near-Human. The same could be said of the Mirakula if, say, they ended up on a completely dark planet and didn't need their eyes any more, as did species found in Mammoth cave and the Ganges dolphin. Obviously, "near-Human" species found on Earth have so far been inferior, so those are the only ones your textbooks describe.

And if the term "near-Humans" is incorrect, the term "near-Duros" of a past Gamer article must also be incorrect in referring to Neimoidians. So I'm sticking to the established canonical Star Wars universe on this one.

 

"Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
- hu·man·like /-m&n-"lIk/ adjective"

No it's still wrong in any since of the word. Many species fall under the Overlying term of "human", all are extinct except for homo sapiens, sadly here on earth. Near-human refers to species of animals that predate Human species, and are ape-like, and less-sensient, more like animals.

Also, Consider, there have been humans who evolved blue Genitallia, as sexual prowes trait, to improve chance of getting a mate found in south america. They are just as human as you and I.

If you continue to follow the incorrect usages of terminoligy invented on earth for anthroplogy, in the way that the authors have, you are just as ignorant as they are and your argument holds no weight. If you continue to do so, you only arguing that the water is NaCl, when in actuality it's H20, or arguing 2+2=5, it's utterly redicilous.

 

Can we think of something even more boring to debate than this!?

 

Let me put it another way, and I will say no more, as this discussion is turning quite silly. IN TESB, the SSD Executor is a warship. It is part of the Imperial Navy and a vessel that flies through space. This is a fact.

But is it? Any serious discussions I find on-line or anywhere else will refer to navies, warships, armadas, fleets, etc, will certainly pertain only to maritime vessels. I could quote hundreds of sources, and all would reflect past and current sea-going ships. By this literalist definition, the Imperial Navy is not a navy at all, because a navy must navigate water. The Executor is not a warship, there is no such thing as a warship in space. The only warships have been boats.

Therefore, by your logic, you are incorrect if you refer to the Imperial Navy as a navy. You are only following the footsteps of mis-informed writers.

Science FICTION! We suspend our disbelief, and extend the vague term "navy" to mean a FICTITIOUS collection of spacefaring warships the likes of which have never been seen, the same way I and scores science fiction authors extend the vague term "near-Human" to FICTITIOUS descendants of mankind, the likes of which have never been seen.

Just as Navy is a valid term pertaining to the Imperial Starfleet, near-Human is a valid term pertaining to, well, near-Humans.