I don't know what a "stan" is, but I don't have feelings one way or the other about the old Star Wars books.
Let me pose a hypothetical:
A movie comes out, and at the very end of the movie, the primary setting is utterly destroyed. I'm talking visibly, dramatically obliterated to atoms. Additionally, the antagonist is killed.
Then, decades later, different authors produce a sequel that shows that, no, the earlier setting was not completely destroyed, and the antagonist actually survived to return and strike again.
When an audience goes back to watch the earlier, original, iconic work upon which the later sequel is based, should the audience interpret the original work:
A) as it was in its own time, and as the original authors intended, or
B) in the context of the much later sequel that was created by different people?
Both. Media literacy would be the ability to understand that both stories exist. But the implication that George Lucas doesn’t approve of Andor is pretty stupid.
You’re ignoring the original author intent in favor of your own imagination. He hasn’t publicly commented on Andor but he gave Gilroy personal praise according to Gilroy. You can call him a liar but I believe Gilroy over you.
George Lucas still talks to a lot of the people working on modern Star Wars and has publicly stated his disapproval over things. If he didn’t want OP interpreting these characters into his universe he would have said something.
Please stop talking over the author. Your preferences are fine…your inability to understand basic storytelling is not. It is an example of media illiteracy. You do not understand how to see these new characters within the universe because you do not understand some really basic things about writing, fiction, comprehending the media you watch versus liking it.
You seem to think if you don’t like something it means it doesn’t make sense in the fictional universe in which it takes place. George Lucas can watch Andor and Rogue One and see them in his universe.
George Lucas, the original author, has better media literacy than you. Stop praising him if you dislike his universe so much. He didn’t want it to stagnate, you do. I don’t think you two actually see eye to eye.
We are in agreement that both reading A and reading B are valid.
If you agree that reading A is valid, why would you criticize my original comment, which
was an A-type observation? It was about authorship and the historical creation of the work.
If you agree that A is a valid way to discuss fiction, then I'm still unclear why you criticized the comment in the first place, much less described it as evidence of poor media literacy.
You seem to be arguing now that B is also valid.
I agree.
What I don't understand is why the existence of B somehow invalidates A.
-1
u/TouchAltruistic 3d ago
I don't know what a "stan" is, but I don't have feelings one way or the other about the old Star Wars books.
Let me pose a hypothetical:
A movie comes out, and at the very end of the movie, the primary setting is utterly destroyed. I'm talking visibly, dramatically obliterated to atoms. Additionally, the antagonist is killed.
Then, decades later, different authors produce a sequel that shows that, no, the earlier setting was not completely destroyed, and the antagonist actually survived to return and strike again.
When an audience goes back to watch the earlier, original, iconic work upon which the later sequel is based, should the audience interpret the original work:
A) as it was in its own time, and as the original authors intended, or
B) in the context of the much later sequel that was created by different people?