My question is.

Is the book any good?

Seeing as only thing being discussed about this book is that there is a LGBT character in it, I doubt it.

My question is.

Is the book any good?

Seeing as only thing being discussed about this book is that there is a LGBT character in it, I doubt it.

It is not released until april 28th so that is why it is not being discussed. But don't let reading the OP or the links they reference get in the way of a good complaint.

Okay, so how did you manage to slip past the auto-censor?

You must be smarter than the board censor! (:

"Moff Mors"? Could they have possibly found a more suggestive name, or was "Marpet Cuncher" already in use?

Also, I'm offended that the galaxy's first LGBWTFBBQ character is with the evil Imperials, implying that there's something wrong with this perverted, disgusting abomination of the natural order.

Further, I'm offended that no one else has yet pointed out these things nor appears to be as angry as myself.

I hate you all to death.

"Moff Mors"? Could they have possibly found a more suggestive name, or was "Marpet Cuncher" already in use?

Also, I'm offended that the galaxy's first LGBWTFBBQ character is with the evil Imperials, implying that there's something wrong with this perverted, disgusting abomination of the natural order.

Further, I'm offended that no one else has yet pointed out these things nor appears to be as angry as myself.

I hate you all to death.

Okay, firstly, I don't think "Moff" being an imperial title is part of some long-term game plan begun many years ago to culminate on 28th April in the masterstroke of having a lesbian character called "Moff Mors".

Secondly, as Bad Guys are usually more interesting than the Good Guys (or gals in this case), this character actually gets to be cooler than otherwise.

Thirdly, I suspect you're winding us up.

"Moff Mors"? Could they have possibly found a more suggestive name, or was "Marpet Cuncher" already in use?

You're looking for subtly from a series that gave us names like Kit Fisto?

"Moff Mors"? Could they have possibly found a more suggestive name, or was "Marpet Cuncher" already in use?

You're looking for subtly from a series that gave us names like Kit Fisto?

STAR WARS Adds First LGBT Character to Canon

Great!

In Lords of the Sith, the Emperor and Darth Vader become stranded on Ryloth and have to rely on each other to get off... <snip>

I know where the rest of this sentence is going...

<snip> ...the planet and survive the insurgents fighting the Empire. Moff Delian Mors is an Imperial officer in the book (because I’ve seen confusion, remember, Moff is a title). She apparently has a key role, and she happens to be a lesbian.

I guess I didn't know where it was going... Good on them for including a LGBT character.

Also, I'm offended that the galaxy's first LGBWTFBBQ character is with the evil Imperials, implying that there's something wrong with this perverted, disgusting abomination of the natural order.

Further, I'm offended that no one else has yet pointed out these things nor appears to be as angry as myself.

I agree with Lorne on this point, but from a different perspective. It seems that a lot of the time an evil female character is created as a lesbian because she can still be used as a naughty sex object for men. Besides the whole "two hot women making out" thing, creative folks often use it as an excuse to include skin tight leather outfits that show lots of skin, BDSM, and any other lesbian stereotypes that are floating out there that are considered sexy by men. If that was the goal of this character, then I'll change my opinion of "good on them" to "bad on them".

At this point in time, I will disagree on the thought that this implies that LGBT is wrong. This is a book focused on bad guy characters, so the protagonists are bad guys. There has to be a first somewhere. (Heck, she might even be a good character and might be a voice of reason for Vader and the Emperor for all that we know.) However, if this is the only LGBT character ever, or if the vast majority of LGBT characters are evil, then I can be swayed on this stance.

As Shapiro mentions, this isn’t the first LGBT character in all of Star Wars. Mandalorians Goran Beviin and Medrit Vasur were married in the Legacy of the Force books by Karen Traviss, and same sex relationships are an option in the game Star Wars: The Old Republic. But that’s all Legends and was never technically canon. So, this is the first instance of a LGBT character in canon.

Also noted in the article, not the first time in Star Wars, but the first time in canon, or at least the new Disney canon.

This makes me sick....

... That we have such a society where skin colour, orientation, creed etc is a target of bigotry.

We should save our hate for the eventual alien or robot overlords.

"Moff Mors"? Could they have possibly found a more suggestive name, or was "Marpet Cuncher" already in use?

Also, I'm offended that the galaxy's first LGBWTFBBQ character is with the evil Imperials, implying that there's something wrong with this perverted, disgusting abomination of the natural order.

Further, I'm offended that no one else has yet pointed out these things nor appears to be as angry as myself.

I hate you all to death.

I... Don't get it? What does the term moff have to do with innuendo?

I... Don't get it? What does the term moff have to do with innuendo?

Moff=Muff.

It was the 'Mors' that confused me.

It was the 'Mors' that confused me.

That is close to Mons.

or "More"

Okay people. If you have to change more than one letter and in two different words to make something vaguely naughty, you're trying too hard. Elsa says let it go.

Just to be pedantic about this, she is the first LGBTQ character in Star Wars canon that we know their sexuality. We actually have no idea at all about the sexuality of the vast majority of characters in Star Wars. They engage in no overtly heterosexual or homosexual acts. As for the aliens, for many species we do not even know if they see sexuality in the same way humans do at all.

I am hoping that Delian Mors' sexuality is handled as an organic part of her character. It is certainly less "icky" than Luke Skywalker spending all of A New Hope and a good bit of The Empire Strikes Back lusting over his *sister*.

So were people going for "Muff Deli and More!" when thinking naughty?

Well, "mors" seems to hail from the latin word morsus, which means "bitten, eaten, devoured, consumed, having been bitten", which in turn gave us morsure (bite).

So, Lorne does have a point, more so if you understand French. I seriously hope the authors didn't know about this.

(On a similar topic of translations/unfortunate choice of words, the F&D specialization called "Aggressor" is definitely a no-go in French, if you translate it literally, it is almost always used as a synonym for a sexual offender. I presume this wasn't intentional either, and I was never quite sure if I should have warned the designers about it during the F&D Beta...)

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. Gay charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The Gay Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

Ok I am going to out myself as a Trans Lesbian, I love all Sci-Fi But Star Wars over Trek.

I wull be having a Sith (Race) Jedi (After Order 66) and I think I will play her like I am.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

(1) It is a social statement.

(2) The big problem with "The *** Character" is when they're completely one-note (as in, wholly defined by their sexuality) or they play into common social stereotypes (which are tedious and frequently offensive).

(3) You don't want social justice in your space opera? lol what do you think the Rebellion is all about dude?! It's a bunch of oppressed and marginalized people, many of them non-human and with a decent number of non-male leaders, fighting The Man. Social justice has been in Star Wars literally since the beginning when Princess Leia bucked the stereotype of the fragile meek princess.

(3) You don't want social justice in your space opera? lol what do you think the Rebellion is all about dude?! It's a bunch of oppressed and marginalized people, many of them non-human and with a decent number of non-male leaders, fighting The Man. Social justice has been in Star Wars literally since the beginning when Princess Leia bucked the stereotype of the fragile meek princess.

BOOM!

I want to like this eleven times over.

Stormtrooper: Set Blasters for stun force.

Leia: I've set mine to kill.

No helpless shrinking violet her! She also took out a Hutt, in single combat.

The women of Star Wars may be out numbered by the men, but they are every bit as competent. Leia, Mon Mothma, Mara Jade, even Padme. It took Star Trek until Captain Janeway to really catch up.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

I don't mind social issues explored through any media. What I don't care for is a lot of the shameless PC gratuity tokens that Hollywood aims for by simply inserting a flashing neon sign over a character or plot device that is simply trying to take credit for being diverse for the sake of being able to say they included 'group X' in their story.

So for example, if the character's relationship is part of the story and she happens to be lesbian, that's fine imo. If it's more like she's on the bridge and calls the first officer over "Bob, have I mentioned that I'm a lesbian?" "No ma'am, you haven't." "Well I am, now lets get back to finding Darth Vader and the Emperor." That's a bit exaggerated but my point is as long as anything is actually part of a story I'm fine with it. If it's an obviously contrived piece of drivel to make some lame attempt at scoring PC points, I am not. We will need to actually have the book in hand to know either way.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

(1) It is a social statement.

I don't think it is. I think, and hope, that we're reaching the point where a character can just be what they are for no particular reason other than they just happen to be. A skin colour or an orientation or a gender is not inherently a social statement. Nor should it need to be if we can reach a mature level as a culture. We should strive for the day where it isn't and I believe cases like this are examples as such. There wasn't even any fuss or publicity about this. The author of a blog found out the character was gay and reached out to the author asking if they could do a short piece on it and the author said yes. Now if you want to say that some people take it as a statement, then surely for some that will be correct. But it is not actually a statement unless the author is trying to make one - a statement is about intent, otherwise it's just incidental.

And I like that the inclusion of homosexuality can just be incidental.