Darth Caedus vs Darth Zannah

MasterCilghal wrote:

The argument I raised using that quote was downright wrong and one I’m still ashamed of. First of all, Sue Rostoni says in that same Q&A that they were going to reintroduce elements of the novel which, as we see in Backlash and Vortex, it was basics the whole plot, so the blurb isn’t even rendered non canon. As for the rest, I would suggest reading Ant’s rebuttals to the same very points you’ve raised. The matter here is not whether the quote is canon or not, but what it’s referring to.

I know of this already. Elements of the novel and Zekk's arc were introduced in the later series Fate of the Jedi, but some of the events later being canonized were due to the events being included in Fate of the Jedi, which has nothing to do with a blurb for an unpublished N-Canon novel. In other words, while some of the events are later introduced as stories in Fate of the Jedi, that doesn't somehow render the book "Blood Oath" as canon, and consequently the blurb that goes with it.

@Ash:

First off, I'm gonna commend your attempt to emulate both ILS and Ziggy throughout this post. It made for moderately solid entertainment value but unfortunately you lack Ziggy's charm and ILS's wit so it ultimately falls flat. I'll give you a C for impact, and an A for effort. Sound fair?

Rostoni point blank asserts Blood Oath as Non-Canon.

Of course it isn't Canon, it was never published. That isn't the same as its synopsis (Republished on the C-Canon website) being Canon.

One critical detail that you are missing is that the blurb was tagged with, "Kids, Stuff to Read, Vault, Books" not in the actual databank. Blurbs have a license to be subjective whereas the SW.com databank is intended to be a factual source of information. Hence the name "databank." SW.com wouldn't need to distinguish "databank" from the other tags unless the other tags aren't intended to be a factual source of information.

Um... that's not how it works? The "Databank" is classified as such because it's meant to contain general information for readers, the "Books" section is to give you an overview of a novel (Spoiler: The website is organised). That doesn't imply that one is Canon and one is not, and to state such is in direct violation of the Canon policy (Which has the websites default standing as C-Canon) and would need explicit clarification. But as shown in your final sentences you're not intersted in the facts here, and will try any number of tactics to worm out of the obvious. Your purpose here is agenda driven.

While I do acknowledge that I agree with a "certain poster", absolutely no one cares. Therefore it is considered-

IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT: 1

I appear to have touched a nerve. Where's your sense of humour?

Chee is a proponent of what I'm arguing, that all supremacy quotes aren't meant to be taken as power in the Force for ScionofSkywalker77's Star Wars debating needs.

Chee is a proponent of differing interpretations and debate yes (Like the sort we're engaged in now). Remind me why this general point is relevant to your specific argument?

You still haven't explained how your interpretation is "more viable" than mine, just that mine simply isn't viable, which is wrong.

Except I did, in the same post you're quoting.

While you concede that the context "doesn't actually tell us anything concrete about the nature of the power" (meaning you you don't accept that the surrounding context could refer to your interpretation anyway), you still have yet to refute that the surrounding context was "something concrete".

I don't have to argue against the surrounding context being concrete, as it has no bearing on the statement itself. "The forces of Darth Caedus" being the topic doesn't change the fact that "The most powerful of the sith lords" is a clarification of who's forces they're actually facing, not anything related to the forces themselves.

I disagree that Sith Lords are primarily defined by Force power. One has to ask themselves what constitutes as power in the eyes of Sith Lord, especially one following the Rule of Two methodology. What is more important to them: Exerting tyrannical control over the galaxy and it's inhabitants, or being personally more powerful than all. In more cases than not, I'd go with the former interpretation, especially when considering one who follows the Rule of Two methodology.

You're treating this quote as if it's from the perspective of a sith lord, as if what's important to them specifically matters. It doesn't. It's from the POV of a neutral OOU narrator, and most people's perception of sith lords is that they're... you guessed it, force users. 

On top of that, my point about why it didn't describe Caedus as a "man" or "figure" if the goal was to convey the extent of his military went unanswered. Probably because it's obvious that the quote is clarifying who Caedus himself is, not what the potency of the army under him is.  

Another avenue is to look at the specific Sith Lord in question. Darth Caedus's main goal was to bring peace to the galaxy, and have a better galaxy for his daughter. The main avenue Caedus would achieve this in would be through uniting the galaxy through political and military means with the Galactic Alliance. While Caedus does somewhat care about his powers in the Force, this is not his main goal first and foremost as a Sith Lord. Therefore a Sith Lord being "powerful" in the eyes of Caedus should primarily focus on a strong military and political force rather than his Force powers.

The power isn't being talked about from Caedus's perspective but a neutral one so it's a total irrelevancy (As explained above). Moreover, while Caedus's ultimate goal requires power that's militaristic rather than personal, if you actually bothered to read LOTF you'd know that Caedus spends a great deal more time obsessing over his own destiny and how he can increase his personal power. His defining moment is the killing of Mara, something that bolstered his force abilities, not his military. As the books progress Caedus becomes more and more deluded about his own self importance, only reclaiming his clarity of purpose in Invincible. So when looking at the totality of his career, most of it was furthering his own personal gain as opposed to his galactic control.

I don't agree that a blurb that is bound to it's previous out-of-universe knowledge would apply characters who come after the fact on the out-of-universe chronology. While I agree that this is simply a methodology I and a majority of people go by, I don't see a better way to deal with out-of-universe chronology.

You're actually in the minority here, not the majority.  That aside, I see no reason why a quote describing IU events should be subject to an OOU chronology. For example, if a quote says "the most powerful sith lord in history" when desccribing IU events, it's obviously referring to the other IU sith, not the sith that have been created thus far OOU.

Not one single reader cares about your failed attempt dun-moch, you and your fellow Caedus fanboys can do that on your own time.

You do, as evidenced by your own desire to respond with an "irrelevant bullshit" counter.

I'll start arguing for Zannah once I see any remotely viable argument for Caedus.

Concession accepted.

Caedus is a failure of a Sith Lord, and useless destruction of the once valorous Jacen Solo, who I otherwise have a great deal of respect for compared to Caedus.

Glad we got to the core of this argument. There's no actual factual basis for your case, it's all based on hatred for a fictional character. How very... pathetic.

The holistics favour Caedus.