Talk:Splinter of the Mind's Eye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Quote: "Additional inconsistencies exist such Luke having to recharge his lightsaber (which is revealed in other EU sources as having a lifelong power source)." Mace recharges his lightsaber in Shatterpoint, but that was after it'd been used extensively. -LtNOWIS 01:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Novel's relation to ESB and Jedi?

This novel has many of the same elements later used or planned to be used in ESB, such as Mimban == Dagobah, and the rebel base, the crash site, and a neutral planet all in the same system (Hoth, Bespin, and Dagobah were originally all in the same solar system, in Leigh Brackett's version of the story).

In regards Jedi, the furry, primative Coway effectively battle the Stormtroopers, much as the Ewoks did on Endor. Also, the "Yuzzim" were in an early version of the ROTJ script, mentioned in (iirc) _The Art of Return of the Jedi._

Are there other relations, and would it be worth putting these in the article?


[edit] About the trivia

In the last line, it says:

"In the novel (released in 1978), C-3PO mentions that Darth Vader knows "all the proper code words and commands" to shut him down. This would make sense, given the revelation in Star Wars—Episode I: The Phantom Menace (released in 1999) that Vader himself built 3-PO when he was a little boy. Whether George Lucas developed this story element at that point is unknown."

It doesn't make much sense, given the fact that C3PO's memory was deleted at the end of Episode III. Should this entry be deleted? Fyxr 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Base commands wouldn't necessarily be stored in the same place as regular memories (read-only memory, as opposed to read/write memory). That way you could wipe a droid but it would still retain its original functionality (otherwise you'd have to re-teach C-3PO thousands of languages with each wipe). It makes sense to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


In 'trivia' it says:

"At the time it was written, the familial relationship between Luke, Leia, and Darth Vader — that Luke and Leia were siblings, and Vader their father — had yet to be conceived by George Lucas. Therefore, some inconsistencies with the later films are evident and unavoidable, most noticeably the sexual tension depicted between Luke and Leia in this book which in retrospect would be considered inappropriate. Although Lucas claims to have had the Star Wars saga mapped out even at this early stage, the fact he allowed this plot element to remain in Foster's novel provides evidence that he hadn't yet conceptualized the family connection between the three characters at this point."

This doesn't make sense. There is "sexual tensions" between Luke and Leia in the movies as well. At one point Leia even kisses Luke on the mouth to make Han Solo jalous (neither she og Luke know they are related). So WHY does this novel "provide evidence that he (Lucas) hadn't yet conceptualized the family connection between the three characters at this point"?

EXACTLY - I think that entry should be removed. Coupled with Lucas' repeated statements that he had conceptualized the series by the release of Episode IV, that entry is a complete fallacy.
I agree - in addition this book came out in 1978 and Lucas may not have been exercising the rigorous controls he later did - this was the same year the Holiday Special was made. I'm deleiting the section now. Timrollpickering 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - While Lucas may have already determined the familial relationship in his draft story outline before Ep 4. and hid it from the audience until Ep. 6, I believe he was very careful to show Luke/Leia's interactions to be harmless, sexless and plutonic. (Did anyone really feel that Leia was being sexually forward with Luke when she kissed him in front of Han? I didnt. Even at age 8. Kissing Luke on the cheek before swining across the bridge... i think it was enough of a romantic display to appease the needs of Hollywood execs but not very suggestive.)
What made SOTME's inclusion of this sexual tension innappropriate in retrospect was the reader's ability to know what is going on in the character's head, which was clearly sexual and romantic. In the case of the book, there is a clear building of a romantic story arc.
But all of the above is really academic. Since this story was developed as a low-budget alternative to continuing Lucas' story arc if Ep 4 didnt work out, it could be argued that this book was never supposed to be apart of Lucas' "official" universe and therefore isn't restricted by the relationships that did later emerge in his extended narrative.
In fact, it is a great example that Lucas' did a great job of hiding Luke/Leia's true relationship, even from Alan Dean Foster, who understandably decided to continue a potential romantic relationship that was hinted at in EP4.
Jfdonohoe 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)