Lit Thrawn Trilogy: Overrated?

What?

 

I'm more of a longtime lurker than an active participant, but I see an opportunity to chime in here.

Thrawn is frequently described as an evil Sherlock Holmes, but I remember Arthur Conan Doyle being better about showing rather than just telling in his writing. It's been a long time since I read the original stories (though I have read all of them at some point), but the inferences Holmes makes are usually broken down, frequently by conversing with Watson, in such a way that you find yourself going, "Oh, yeah, I could believe he knew that." There's a few examples that stand out, one of which involves scratches on a expensive watch originally owned by Watson's brother that leads Holmes to infer his brother's carelessness and descent into alcoholism. I'm having trouble remembering more details unfortunately, but my general point is that while Doyle frequently withheld details temporarily of Holmes's thought process in order to maintain suspense, he always went into a detailed explanation later to minimize the "Bat deduction" factor.

This was comparatively lacking in Zahn's writing of Thrawn. Maybe my memory is erasing details of it, but I don't think the Marg Sabl closure maneuver is explained in detail beyond "unstructured" when Thrawn takes out the Elomin task force. It would have been nice to see more of a breakdown there, even if the explanation was slightly rubbish. Like, look at the regular use of right angles and geometrically perfect circles in Elomin art, look at the symmetry. That's why they can't handle unstructured attacks. Comparatively, look at how Mon Calamari art emphasizes irregular shapes and lends itself towards complex representations of 3D space thanks to their aquatic background. Stuff like that, trying harder to immerse you in Thrawn's genius, to make you really believe that he is that smart and not just a tool of the writer.

It probably helped that Arthur Conan Doyle was probably a better amateur detective than Zahn is an amateur military commander. Doyle was supposedly able to poke holes in a real life British prosecution and spare a man who was wrongfully accused.

 

Your insight does you credit! Please chime in more frequently!

 

I think compare to other EU at that time, it might be quite amazing. But yeah when I read it years ago I don't feel it's the crown jewel of the SW books. The villains aren't really convincing beside Thrawn and the climax is a bit weak, also no important Republic death is a flaw, too.

 

How is no major Republic death a flaw? The story flowed well, and the two major deaths, Joruus and Thrawn, both fit and were well written, rather than being added for cheap drama.

 

But they are the villains, to show one of the greatest foes that the Republic had ever faced, use Republic major figure's blood would be the best. It's kind silly that he almost drove the Republic to the edge but didn't kill even one major leader.

 

Neither did Vader and Palpatine in the movies.

 

Yea what major leader was killed in in the OT?

 

Arvel Crynyd

rip

 

Never heard of him. Obviously wasn't that important or relevant.

 

Bale and Obi Wan.

Vader: Obi Wan, CIS Leaders and some important Jedi.
Palpatine: Four Jedi Masters.

If we count the EU there are more.

 

Why are you counting the PT? Keep in mind this was the book was out way before those movies. All Zahn had to go off of was the OT so thats not really fair. Also, you really brought up other EU books?! You bring up books written way after the fact and try to compare them? That's not really fair. Bale wasn't a main character by any means, we didn't even see him before he died. Obi-Wan Kenobi is valid, though it could be argued that his purpose was to introduce Luke into this new world and his death was necessary. Also he sacrificed himself. He wasn't bested.

 

We never see Bail die. And I blanked on Obi-Wan, but I could also argue that he was not a Rebel leader at all, just Luke's mentor. And he does continue to advise Luke in his spirit form. Yoda dies peacefully, and returns as a spirit.
Prequel trilogy didn't exist until 8 years after HttE came out.

Turning this back around, what would a major death on the "hero" side accomplish in the Thrawn Teilogy, and who should it have been? How would it make things "better?'

 

I remember when I first read it I thought Lando got wasted.

 

Bail was a important rebel leader clearly, he was behind the operation of destroy the Death Star.
Obi Wan was clearly losing, if he could run away with Luke he would have done so, Vader made clear that his power was weakening due to age.

He did die, and Obi-Wan clearly kept connection with Bail, otherwise Leia would not have sent R-2 to find him and ask for help. He still got killed by Vader.

It would have shown Thrawn's menace, and forever leave a scar on the Republic rather than "yeah he's awesome but we didn't lose any important guys".

Mon Mothma would have been the best, to further drive the Republic into deep trouble and not like celebrate the victory so happily after Thrawn's downfall.

 

um i think i posted in the wrong thread or something

 

The A-Wing pilot.

 

The fact remains that Bail, Obi-Wan, and Yoda all died within the OT, and were important characters on the side of the "Good Guys".

And I agree with Slowpokeking that Thrawn killing a major New Republic figure adds to his overall menace and credibility as a villain in the story. That's quite simply just how it works. The more important the characters are a villain kills, the bigger a threat he is. When written well, this leads to the villain being more compelling and feared. When written terribly, it only comes off as shock value and adds nothing. I've seen nothing from Zahn to imply he couldn't have written this.

However, I disagree that it should've been Mon Mothma. She'd work of course. Heck, any Rebellion-Erar figure of her status would've worked, but her surviving was important for her plot thread with Garm. Though I suppose when talking about killing a major figure in a what-if scenario everything's going to be changed anyways.

 

Zahn may not have had authorization to kill off anyone of major importance. It was a long time ago and the EU wasnt as well established, Lucas may not have been comfortable with the idea of movie characters being knocked off at that stage.

 

I just watched ROTJ, including the fight on Jabba's barge and Mara's presence there seems more unbelievable than ever. The entire thing exploded in the middle of the Dune Sea*. How does she survive that?

*Over a sarlacc pit

 

She wasn't there. She was left at the palace.

 

Yes, I brought up Mon Mothma because some authors wanted to kill her (Not sure is Zahn one of them) and Lucas didn't give the permission.

 

Sorry, posted this in the wrong thread.

 

In regards to killing off good guy characters, you could say Han was killed off in all but name in ESB. Lando was due to die in RTJ, hence Han's line about not seeing the Falcon again, but Lucas changed it as he felt it would detract from Vaders death.
Then there is Biggs who in the uncut version is shown as Luke's friend and had a larger role.

In terms of Last Command, since Mara killed both Luuke and C'boath I felt bring Leia to Wayland seemed a bit superfluous storywise, while the actual trek lost a bit of tension seeing as how they were protected by Noghri the whole time.

 

Wasn't it Leia that guided Mara at the critical moment, so she could move without needing to see?