That doesn't mean she isn't a loon. She's also responsible for some of the worst work in SW as well. Now that doesn't make her a loon anymore then some good work makes her not a loon. Her looneyness is independent of the good or bad of her writing.

Well then how can you tell if she's a loon?????

Probably by looking at how she interacts with others and her personal beliefs.

If I was to try to make an argument FOR her being a loon, I would cite her claiming anyone who liked Jedi and disagreed with her writing to be Nazi sympathisers and slave owners and her fixation of the virtues of a military state combined with some hypocrisy about that same subject.

But, honestly, that's just based on reading some of her online stuff, which really isn't enough to judge her on. Things got heated, she said some dumb stuff. I don't know her personally.

See, that's what i think. But everyone else thinks she's a loon.

You know, now that you mention it, the entire show has a very...80's feel to it. She has a lot of a cyberpunk feel for me to. Then you have the big strong alien, and the friggin light slighshot (which is dumb, but just SOOOOO 80's I still love it). And then of course it is Star Wars which obviously has a very late 70's/80's feel. The whole premise of the shot would fit in very well as a 1985 Saturday Morning cartoon, right after He-Man. With a different art style, obviously. And a killer intro that would stick in your head for decades reguardless of the shows actual quality.

And dang it, now I have the theme song of Jem stuck in my head again.

...

"She's truly, truly, truly outraaageous. Ooooh, Jeeem..."

Agent Kallus has some serious 70s mutton chops going on...

Mmmmm, love dem chops. The more I analyse them the more I like the stylistic choices this show is making. The Ralph McQuarrie inspired art, the John Williams score, the very 80's aesthetic, and the actually cool and strong characters who just happen to be female (rather than your typical "strong female characters", a design choice I actively dislike). Overall, I'm pretty excited.

- A spray painting, steampunk mandolorian chick? Come on now Disney.. You can do much better then that.

A lot of us think she makes for an interesting character for those reasons. It breaks quite nicely with the established Disney Princess role.

Its not that she isn't interesting, its that the character does not fit into the universe what so ever.

While the universe is spiraling out of control and the rebels are doing all they can to start a resistance, she has time to run around spray painting?

The character just screams of them forcing her to be different for the sake of being different. Characters are supposed to improve upon a universe and she adds nothing to that.

When the character was revealed their was a pretty big backlash so I'm certainly not the only star wars fan that doesn't thinks she fit.

Just because some 5 year old girl wants to be her for Halloween doesnt mean the character fits.

Graffiti is historically a very comin form if dissent, dating all the way back to the roman republic and before. Letting people know they are not alone in their struggle against something is almost the core of a rebellion. It unites people and irritates and disrupts the target.

It's probably the most fitting thing in the concept if starting a rebellion this show has. Much more so than a Jedi, who are supposed to be dead for example.

No, it doesn't say it all. And she didn't refuse the reality. Clone Wars completely changed it. That's why it's not being finished.

And Traviss tried to completely change the Jedi. Didn't stop anyone else from continuing to write.

rather than your typical "strong female characters", a design choice I actively dislike.

As a father of 2 daughters (and 2 sons...) I like strong female characters, gives my girls something to look up to. I do agree though that sometimes the strong female is done poorly.

They sometimes make them strong despite being a girl. Or else remove most of the girl from the character...

Stargate had some very strong female characters who had a good balance. Firefly did too. I so far kinda dig Sabine, because she's a nice departure from the typical Disney Princess. That's actually something I appreciated about Frozen that it was family rather then the boyfriend/prince who saved the day.

That doesn't mean she isn't a loon. She's also responsible for some of the worst work in SW as well. Now that doesn't make her a loon anymore then some good work makes her not a loon. Her looneyness is independent of the good or bad of her writing.

Well then how can you tell if she's a loon?????

Probably by looking at how she interacts with others and her personal beliefs.

If I was to try to make an argument FOR her being a loon, I would cite her claiming anyone who liked Jedi and disagreed with her writing to be Nazi sympathisers and slave owners and her fixation of the virtues of a military state combined with some hypocrisy about that same subject.

But, honestly, that's just based on reading some of her online stuff, which really isn't enough to judge her on. Things got heated, she said some dumb stuff. I don't know her personally.

See, that's what i think. But everyone else thinks she's a loon.

Yes, but to be fair, the information they have to go on supports that supposition. She didn't handle the situation well and it made her look bad. Forming that opinion is very understandable.

Now are we justified in labeling someone we barely know based on a few snippets from their life. Probably not. Realistically we don't have enough information to develop a strong idea of what she is like. But it is still very understandable.

And to put all my cards on the table, I am also not very fond of her as an author. I thought RC was very good, and I think writing that type of situation is where she does her best work, but her other stuff turned me off big time. The stuff with Jaina, Boba Fett, and Luke...ugg. That was bad.

But then again, I like Kevin J. Anderson, and he's not very popular either. He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well, BUT JUST CAN'T STOP JUMPING THAT FRIGGIN SHARK! WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SUPER WEAPON, OR ANOTHER PALPATINE, JUST STOP IT KEVIN! But I still like him.

I went to a panel with him and Stackpole recently, and he shared a story about an idea Lucas shot down he wanted to include about the origin of the Ewoks, and why they are so cute, and why they worship protocol droids. It was amazing! Love his ideas, but he definitely needs an editor.

No, it doesn't say it all. And she didn't refuse the reality. Clone Wars completely changed it. That's why it's not being finished.

And Traviss tried to completely change the Jedi. Didn't stop anyone else from continuing to write.

Because no one else was writing about Mandos.

That doesn't mean she isn't a loon. She's also responsible for some of the worst work in SW as well. Now that doesn't make her a loon anymore then some good work makes her not a loon. Her looneyness is independent of the good or bad of her writing.

Well then how can you tell if she's a loon?????

Probably by looking at how she interacts with others and her personal beliefs.

If I was to try to make an argument FOR her being a loon, I would cite her claiming anyone who liked Jedi and disagreed with her writing to be Nazi sympathisers and slave owners and her fixation of the virtues of a military state combined with some hypocrisy about that same subject.

But, honestly, that's just based on reading some of her online stuff, which really isn't enough to judge her on. Things got heated, she said some dumb stuff. I don't know her personally.

See, that's what i think. But everyone else thinks she's a loon.

Yes, but to be fair, the information they have to go on supports that supposition. She didn't handle the situation well and it made her look bad. Forming that opinion is very understandable.

Now are we justified in labeling someone we barely know based on a few snippets from their life. Probably not. Realistically we don't have enough information to develop a strong idea of what she is like. But it is still very understandable.

And to put all my cards on the table, I am also not very fond of her as an author. I thought RC was very good, and I think writing that type of situation is where she does her best work, but her other stuff turned me off big time. The stuff with Jaina, Boba Fett, and Luke...ugg. That was bad.

But then again, I like Kevin J. Anderson, and he's not very popular either. He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well, BUT JUST CAN'T STOP JUMPING THAT FRIGGIN SHARK! WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SUPER WEAPON, OR ANOTHER PALPATINE, JUST STOP IT KEVIN! But I still like him.

I went to a panel with him and Stackpole recently, and he shared a story about an idea Lucas shot down he wanted to include about the origin of the Ewoks, and why they are so cute, and why they worship protocol droids. It was amazing! Love his ideas, but he definitely needs an editor.

Well, like i said, RC is the only Traviss SW thing I've ever read.

Yes, but to be fair, the information they have to go on supports that supposition. She didn't handle the situation well and it made her look bad. Forming that opinion is very understandable.

Any time an author calls her readers nazi's... Because they don't agree with him or her, I think Loon is pretty well established.

I also think anyone who's going to start writing in such a huge and established IP like Star Wars and refuse to read any other work... Again Loon is fair.

Then to do what she did in Jedi Legacy, completely ignoring everything that had happened before and was happening currently then having a fit and leaving because she wasn't allowed to trash the IP even further... Loon is perhaps a bit mild.

rather than your typical "strong female characters", a design choice I actively dislike.

As a father of 2 daughters (and 2 sons...) I like strong female characters, gives my girls something to look up to. I do agree though that sometimes the strong female is done poorly.

They sometimes make them strong despite being a girl. Or else remove most of the girl from the character...

Stargate had some very strong female characters who had a good balance. Firefly did too. I so far kinda dig Sabine, because she's a nice departure from the typical Disney Princess. That's actually something I appreciated about Frozen that it was family rather then the boyfriend/prince who saved the day.

When I say I dislike "strong female characters", I specifically mean that I love strong female characters and despise "strong female characters" (the quotation marks are important here). "Strong Female Character" is marketing speak for inserting certain types of token characters, a character with a "strong female" vaneer which is then immediately ignored so they can be rescued by the big, strong man that they need in their life to be worthwhile. They make a big fuss about doing one or two cool things at the beginning of the movie, make a scene when someone calls them "doll" or "babe" once, and then proceed to contribute nothing to the rest of the film beyond being a damsel in distress. They tend to either hate the fact that they are a women and hide it (because women are weak, right guys?) or they are overly sexualized to the point where you wonder how they are supposed to fight in high heels (because that is a woman's roll in a movie, right guys?) Yeah, I despise "strong female characters".

In contrast, I love strong female CHARACTERS, and that is part of what has me so excited for this show. Hera and Sabine both seem to promise ACTUAL strong female CHARACTERS. Hera seems competent, she's a leader, and doesn't seem to have any daddy issues. Sabine also seems competent, dresses in a way that is utilitarian and makes sense, but also appears to be comfortable with being feminine while not allowing that do define her character. I think it's great to show you can be balanced, useful, and still feminine in a way you are comfortable with. In both cases they seem to be well rounded characters with unique personalities first, and girls second, which I think is a much stronger role model to young women then characters who are girls first (we need a "strong female character") and characters second ("ok, now that we have a "strong female character" written into the script, we should probably come up with a personality for her. After all, it isn't like her personality will have any effect on the story! HAHA, the thought of it!").

That doesn't mean she isn't a loon. She's also responsible for some of the worst work in SW as well. Now that doesn't make her a loon anymore then some good work makes her not a loon. Her looneyness is independent of the good or bad of her writing.

Well then how can you tell if she's a loon?????

Probably by looking at how she interacts with others and her personal beliefs.

If I was to try to make an argument FOR her being a loon, I would cite her claiming anyone who liked Jedi and disagreed with her writing to be Nazi sympathisers and slave owners and her fixation of the virtues of a military state combined with some hypocrisy about that same subject.

But, honestly, that's just based on reading some of her online stuff, which really isn't enough to judge her on. Things got heated, she said some dumb stuff. I don't know her personally.

And in her defense, she's not saying "anyone who liked the Jedi is a Nazi sympathizer". What she said was anyone who believes...

...that the Jedi were right to accept a slave army of cloned human beings and use them in war, and cloned humans aren't proper humans like us, and it was too bad the clones died, and the Jedi had no choice...

...harbours a vile and degrading belief in the concept of Untermensch - the idea that some humans aren't human at all, and we can do as we like with them, for whatever arbitrary value we put on the words "real human." You're looking for ways to sift your kind of human from the humans who don't matter, and who can be consigned to the fate of animals.

Gotta say, there's a part of me that agrees. Her reaction is extreme, but no less extreme than some of the bile that has been spewed in her direction.

I ALWAYS had ethical issues with the Clone Army. I assumed we were supposed to, and my favorite parts of Clone Wars were the ones that addressed it. It fits with the general 'take slavery for granted' idea of Star Wars, but that's an argument for another thread.

I know I was pretty frustrated with how as the other 2 writers were trying to show Jacen falling to the Darkside and becoming a villain, Traviss has to undo all that. Let's just ignore him force choking a few people. Let's make him a hero of the military again. The back and forth between the authors was pretty obvious. It's a pity that she was the one that got to kill off Mara.

As for the Rebels cast, I like it. The characters all seem interesting and different. I've seen many people make comparisons to their RPG groups.

That doesn't mean she isn't a loon. She's also responsible for some of the worst work in SW as well. Now that doesn't make her a loon anymore then some good work makes her not a loon. Her looneyness is independent of the good or bad of her writing.

Well then how can you tell if she's a loon?????

Probably by looking at how she interacts with others and her personal beliefs.

If I was to try to make an argument FOR her being a loon, I would cite her claiming anyone who liked Jedi and disagreed with her writing to be Nazi sympathisers and slave owners and her fixation of the virtues of a military state combined with some hypocrisy about that same subject.

But, honestly, that's just based on reading some of her online stuff, which really isn't enough to judge her on. Things got heated, she said some dumb stuff. I don't know her personally.

And in her defense, she's not saying "anyone who liked the Jedi is a Nazi sympathizer". What she said was anyone who believes

...that the Jedi were right to accept a slave army of cloned human beings and use them in war, and cloned humans aren't proper humans like us, and it was too bad the clones died, and the Jedi had no choice...

...harbours a vile and degrading belief in the concept of Untermensch - the idea that some humans aren't human at all, and we can do as we like with them, for whatever arbitrary value we put on the words "real human." You're looking for ways to sift your kind of human from the humans who don't matter, and who can be consigned to the fate of animals.

Gotta say, there's a part of me that agrees. Her reaction is extreme, but no less extreme than some of the bile that has been spewed in her direction.

I ALWAYS had ethical issues with the Clone Army. I assumed we were supposed to, and my favorite parts of Clone Wars were the ones that addressed it. It fits with the general 'take slavery for granted' idea of Star Wars, but that's an argument for another thread.

If that's how you feel about the clones, then you should read RC.

I know I was pretty frustrated with how as the other 2 writers were trying to show Jacen falling to the Darkside and becoming a villain, Traviss has to undo all that. Let's just ignore him force choking a few people. Let's make him a hero of the military again. The back and forth between the authors was pretty obvious. It's a pity that she was the one that got to kill off Mara.

As for the Rebels cast, I like it. The characters all seem interesting and different. I've seen many people make comparisons to their RPG groups.

Let's be fair though, Jacen's characterization was ALL OVER THE PLACE. The other two authors were just as bad in that respect. His character progression makes no logical sense. He's been jumping across the moral spectrum since the end of the YJK series, and his views and choices almost never made sense no matter what they were. Man, I hated what they did with his character every step of the way.

Because no one else was writing about Mandos.

But everyone was writing about Jedi. The point is that Traviss had no regard for the works of others and would drastically rip characters out of canon to suit her needs, but the moment someone started playing in her sandbox and changed the Mandalorians, she quit in a huff.

Tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Because no one else was writing about Mandos.

But everyone was writing about Jedi. The point is that Traviss had no regard for the works of others and would drastically rip characters out of canon to suit her needs, but the moment someone started playing in her sandbox and changed the Mandalorians, she quit in a huff.

Tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

That's not why she quit, it was because Clone Wars' and RCs Mandalore and Mandalorians were totally different and incompatible.

Gotta say, there's a part of me that agrees.

I'd agree to, if I thought that what she said was in any way true. The fact that she refused to read any other books means that most of what she thought was at best flawed... Yet she lashed out at the consumers of her books, because of her hate of what she thought the Jedi were, which she clearly didn't have a clue of what they really were.

Take the Clone Wars stuff, movies and cartoon. At no point did most of the Jedi treat the clones as if they were simply disposable, other then the one who was already turned to the dark side. They may of been willing to accept losses, but that's true of every battlefield commander.

The Jedi weren't the ones who decided to use a clone army, that was the Senate's decision. The Jedi were put in charge but clearly didn't want the role. They also seemed to go out of their way in the CW show to protect the troopers as best they could, being the first in the advance and last on retreat, using their sabers to protect the troopers as much as they did themselves.

I assumed we were supposed to, and my favorite parts of Clone Wars were the ones that addressed it.

Same here, but what KT did was to twist the Jedi into something that just was not true, or in character for them. The Jedi never showed any believe that they were ubermen, and anyone who couldn't use the force was sub-human.

That's not why she quit, it was because Clone Wars' and RCs Mandalore and Mandalorians were totally different and incompatible.

You're right, which is exactly what keroko said. As soon as someone started changing her favored characters she had a fit and left. Even though she did exactly the same thing with other peoples characters.

Worse... She had a fit when Lucas himself was the one doing it, the one person who had the authority to override everything she had done.

Because no one else was writing about Mandos.

But everyone was writing about Jedi. The point is that Traviss had no regard for the works of others and would drastically rip characters out of canon to suit her needs, but the moment someone started playing in her sandbox and changed the Mandalorians, she quit in a huff.

Tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

That's not why she quit, it was because Clone Wars' and RCs Mandalore and Mandalorians were totally different and incompatible.

Yes, and her Jedi were also totally different and incompatible with the Jedi we know. And her own Mandalorians were largely incompatible with the KotoR Mandalorians. Again, all that happened was that something that she had no problems doing with other people's creations finally happened to her own.

You know what Zahn's reaction was when he found out Mara Jade got killed in Sacrifice? He was extremely displeased at being entirely uninformed about the idea, but also said he would still be willing to write stories about her. And that's after they literally killed of one of his most famous characters.

Oof. I take a couple of hours off to get some actual work done, and look what happens...

http://karentraviss.com/page10/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

Quite honestly, that says it all. And really, rereading it, I find it funny that she emphasizes that it is fiction, but seems to assume that others can't really distinguish the difference themselves.

Good Lord. I hadn't seen that essay. It's, uh... it's problematic. It's problematic for someone who wants to operate in the SW universe (and makes it easy to see why she ended up making the decision not to do so), but it's even more problematic from someone who ought to understand how storytelling works.

For me, part of the point of the Clone Wars (the event) and The Clone Wars (the TV show) is to demonstrate that, hey! There's a problem here! The Jedi are pushed into spearheading a war about which their leaders are ambivalent. They are manipulated into accepting, out of necessity, not only the Republic's army of enslaved child soldiers but their role in leading it: the alternative is even worse. An entire generation of Jedi come into their power believing they're warriors rather than peacekeepers, and discovering that they're good at it--despite the pleas of the old guard who can see what's happening even as they discover that they can't stop it.

That's decidedly not a monochromatic, Manichaean view of Jedi. So I'm not really sure who Traviss, and by extension her SW novels, are trying to persuade.

Traviss is not a loon! RC was absolutely one of the best series ever.

You've said stuff like this multiple times, and if you mean "best series in the Star Wars EU" then it's defensible. If you actually mean "best series ever", I'd suggest you start reading a bit more widely.

Not that I am taking sides here, but I would point out that writing an excellent book series in no way proves she isn't a loon. Someone can be perfectly looney and still write excellent fiction. Heck, in many instances it helps. Look at Lovecraft.

The number of great and good writers who were/are absolute loons is too long to really go into, but let's pull up another of the Internet's favorite punching bags in Orson Scott Card. Arguably wrote some pretty good books (along with some bad ones), but definitely a loon.

Going back a bit further, Heinlein wasn't all that tightly tied either, IIRC.

But then again, I like Kevin J. Anderson, and he's not very popular either. He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well, BUT JUST CAN'T STOP JUMPING THAT FRIGGIN SHARK! WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SUPER WEAPON, OR ANOTHER PALPATINE, JUST STOP IT KEVIN! But I still like him.

Let me fix that for you:

He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well like a college freshman struggling to hold on to his B- in Intro to Rhetoric and Composition.

Look, not everyone who makes a living at writing is a talented wordsmith: Stephen King, as an example, has great (if creepy) ideas and is more than pretty good at plotting and pacing, but his actual prose is workmanlike at best. (Literary fiction has its share of people who go too far the other way: they're lovely craftsmen and -women, but their characters are uninspired and their plots don't actually go anywhere.)

Kevin Anderson has... well, like I said, he definitely has lots of ideas.

I ALWAYS had ethical issues with the Clone Army. I assumed we were supposed to, and my favorite parts of Clone Wars were the ones that addressed it. It fits with the general 'take slavery for granted' idea of Star Wars, but that's an argument for another thread.

Yeah, this. Lucas doesn't even begin to address the intersection of eugenics, militarism, and child slavery at the heart of the Grand Army of the Republic, but then a soft touch when it comes to issues of colonialism and other kinds of privilege and power has never been one of his gifts. Clone Wars, though, took it on explicitly and multiple times. I'd say one of its most consistent themes was the search for individual identity among clones, and how their deviations from their template were handled (or not) by other clones as well by the military hierarchy.

Because no one else was writing about Mandos.

But everyone was writing about Jedi. The point is that Traviss had no regard for the works of others and would drastically rip characters out of canon to suit her needs, but the moment someone started playing in her sandbox and changed the Mandalorians, she quit in a huff.

Tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

That's not why she quit, it was because Clone Wars' and RCs Mandalore and Mandalorians were totally different and incompatible.

That's what he was saying. She had no problem ignoring and changing canon others had written, and was very open about the fact that she was doing it. But when canon she had written was retconned she kind of lost it, got very offended released a big announcement, and cut all ties with Lucasfilm and her publisher.

It was a very poor and unprofessional reaction on her part. I've been to panels with Timothy Zahn, Stackpoll, and Anderson and when they are asked about how they feel about Lucas or Disney changing or removing their stuff their response is always, "Eh, it's not my stuff. I was hired to write in someone elses universe. It's their stuff. I'm flattered when they use it, and a bit sad when they discard it, but it's not my stuff. It's their stuff. That's the nature of contract work."

Traviss...did not say that. She got mad and cut ties. She insulted a lot of people, so people are understandably still mad at her about it.

Please understand, none of this has any effect on the quality of her work. You admit to only reading the one series, which most people agree is good. But you don't have to like or defend everything she does, even if you haven't read it. She acted unprofessionally and a bit hypocritically. That really isn't an opinion, it's fact. Sometimes people you like do dumb things.

Like I said, I didn't like what she did with the Jaina, Luke, and Boba Fett, but that is opinion, and I have no problem with you liking it. But that she acted in a hypocritical and unprofessional manner is not opinion. She took contract work to work in a setting. She openly stated she didn't like what other authors had done with the setting and that she was going to ignore/change it, which can be fine. No problems yet beyond taste. Then when the owner of the setting, and other authors in the setting ignored or discarded what she did, she got very offended, complained about it, insulted the companies that had hired her, and then cut all ties. That is the problem there.

We are all free to still like her books. Her unprofessional behavior does not change the quality of what she did. These are two different topics, but I feel like they are getting combined into one.

An entire generation of Jedi come into their power believing they're warriors rather than peacekeepers, and discovering that they're good at it--despite the pleas of the old guard who can see what's happening even as they discover that they can't stop it.

I'm perhaps giving more credit then is due. But I always felt this was part of the Emperors master plan. To effectively bring so much rot to the Jedi Temple that it would be a fairly easy matter to destroy it when the time was right.

He took a group that should of been and wanted to be peacekeepers, ans turned them into warriors. Naturally any group is going to have trouble surviving such a thing.

Something the Clone Wars seemed to touch on, was the "power corrupts" nature of the Jedi Order.

Going back a bit further, Heinlein wasn't all that tightly tied either, IIRC.

Oooh no, not at all Little trivia, the hippie movement of the 70's loved Stranger in a Strange land, even went as far as to camp out near his house, but he couldn't stand them. That came up in the show Prophets of Science Fiction... Which if you haven't seen, is a great mini-series.

Oof. I take a couple of hours off to get some actual work done, and look what happens...

http://karentraviss.com/page10/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

Quite honestly, that says it all. And really, rereading it, I find it funny that she emphasizes that it is fiction, but seems to assume that others can't really distinguish the difference themselves.

Good Lord. I hadn't seen that essay. It's, uh... it's problematic. It's problematic for someone who wants to operate in the SW universe (and makes it easy to see why she ended up making the decision not to do so), but it's even more problematic from someone who ought to understand how storytelling works.

For me, part of the point of the Clone Wars (the event) and The Clone Wars (the TV show) is to demonstrate that, hey! There's a problem here! The Jedi are pushed into spearheading a war about which their leaders are ambivalent. They are manipulated into accepting, out of necessity, not only the Republic's army of enslaved child soldiers but their role in leading it: the alternative is even worse. An entire generation of Jedi come into their power believing they're warriors rather than peacekeepers, and discovering that they're good at it--despite the pleas of the old guard who can see what's happening even as they discover that they can't stop it.

That's decidedly not a monochromatic, Manichaean view of Jedi. So I'm not really sure who Traviss, and by extension her SW novels, are trying to persuade.

Traviss is not a loon! RC was absolutely one of the best series ever.

You've said stuff like this multiple times, and if you mean "best series in the Star Wars EU" then it's defensible. If you actually mean "best series ever", I'd suggest you start reading a bit more widely.

Not that I am taking sides here, but I would point out that writing an excellent book series in no way proves she isn't a loon. Someone can be perfectly looney and still write excellent fiction. Heck, in many instances it helps. Look at Lovecraft.

The number of great and good writers who were/are absolute loons is too long to really go into, but let's pull up another of the Internet's favorite punching bags in Orson Scott Card. Arguably wrote some pretty good books (along with some bad ones), but definitely a loon.

Going back a bit further, Heinlein wasn't all that tightly tied either, IIRC.

But then again, I like Kevin J. Anderson, and he's not very popular either. He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well, BUT JUST CAN'T STOP JUMPING THAT FRIGGIN SHARK! WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SUPER WEAPON, OR ANOTHER PALPATINE, JUST STOP IT KEVIN! But I still like him.

Let me fix that for you:

He's one of those authors who seems to have a ton of great ideas, and writes very well like a college freshman struggling to hold on to his B- in Intro to Rhetoric and Composition.

Look, not everyone who makes a living at writing is a talented wordsmith: Stephen King, as an example, has great (if creepy) ideas and is more than pretty good at plotting and pacing, but his actual prose is workmanlike at best. (Literary fiction has its share of people who go too far the other way: they're lovely craftsmen and -women, but their characters are uninspired and their plots don't actually go anywhere.)

Kevin Anderson has... well, like I said, he definitely has lots of ideas.

I ALWAYS had ethical issues with the Clone Army. I assumed we were supposed to, and my favorite parts of Clone Wars were the ones that addressed it. It fits with the general 'take slavery for granted' idea of Star Wars, but that's an argument for another thread.

Yeah, this. Lucas doesn't even begin to address the intersection of eugenics, militarism, and child slavery at the heart of the Grand Army of the Republic, but then a soft touch when it comes to issues of colonialism and other kinds of privilege and power has never been one of his gifts. Clone Wars, though, took it on explicitly and multiple times. I'd say one of its most consistent themes was the search for individual identity among clones, and how their deviations from their template were handled (or not) by other clones as well by the military hierarchy.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, but you are running into problems mixing facts with opinions. I won't disagree on your "fix" of my statement about Kevin J Anderson, because the point isn't whether it is true or not, it's that it is not true or false, it's opinion. I like Kevin J Anderson, and have enjoyed many of his books. I think he has a bunch of fun ideas, sprinkled with some horrible jump the shark moments (enough super weapons), and find his writing fun. Tiefanatic may think RC is one of the best books he has ever read. These aren't things you can correct or dispute, and I feel mixing in debates and corrections about someone else's preferences and opinions weakens your overall argument.

I say this because in general I agree with what you are saying, but trying to argue about the truths of what other people write can do nothing but break down the overall conversation. We can debate what Traviss did, we can debate why a book was good or not, what we like or dislike about upcoming shows. But you tell others what they like or think of something in a matter like is is wrong with any level of authority. All you can do is bring about an argument with no chance of concluding in a meaningful way.

And again, I'm not saying Kevin J Anderson is a great technical writer. I think the fact that he is not can be proven fairly well. But I do think many of his ideas are great (afterall, they would have to be with how many ideas he seems to have), and that he has good characterization, and that his writing enjoyable. And I don't think those are things you can reasonably refute, and that attempting to do so can only bring down the overall conversation.

But you tell others what they like or think of something in a matter like is is wrong with any level of authority.

I'd agree to a point.

There's movies I like that I know other people can't stand. They can and have told me all the reasons why I should dislike the movie, how it breaks with proper story writing, or character development or a host of other things. But that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

Same goes with music. Want to start a instant flamewar? Go to any board devoted to mussicians and say "I think Nickleback is a great band." then just watch. They can and will tell you how from a technical standpoint Nickleback is not a good bad, and while their arguments are based on proper music theory... It doesn't change how much money that band has made.

But there is a point where when you're dealing with something like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Warhammer 40k, ect... That when you have someone breaking established canon, they are in fact wrong in doing so, and that is simply not just a matter of opinion.

Again take what KT did in Legacy and I can say that no one should be happy with her writing, because she broke with canon on such a massive scale, that it tainted everything else she did.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, but you are running into problems mixing facts with opinions. I won't disagree on your "fix" of my statement about Kevin J Anderson, because the point isn't whether it is true or not...

I was trying to introduce some levity into what has become a somewhat charged discussion, but on re-reading I think it fell pretty flat. My apologies.