Talk:Zebitrope system
Back to page
Not From the Centrality 
Edit
Please take note of this quote from pages 89-90 of "Lando Calrissian and the Flamewind of Oseon":
- "In another alcove, across the room from that in which the datalink normally was exiled, he kept a terrarium filled with odd spongy growths from a planet a quarter of a galaxy away. Even to him, the great lover of green, growing things, they were utterly repulsive. But they were necessary to nurture and conceal an even more repulsive specimen of lizard that lived in symbiosis with them and shared the planet Zebitrope IV."
- ― Lester Neil Smith
In light of this original material, quoted from the first edition, published in October of 1983, I would like to know where exactly it states that the Zebitrope system and Zebitrope IV are located in the Centrality? How is it possible the planet and solar system are supposed to be in the Centrality while also being "a quarter of a galaxy away" from the planet Oseon 6845 located in the Centrality. Is there some mistake, I hope? -- Frank V Bonura 02:14, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly Lob Doluff is thinking figuratively. Also, since The Essential Atlas tells us that the Hutts control the lesai market, possibly the lesai, the lizards, and the growths were taken by a smuggler from the Zebitrope system to a Hutt-controlled world elsewhere in the galaxy, and through the Hutts' illegal channels eventually made their way back to Doluff in the Oseon. Thanos6 11:32, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Or as Occam's Razor dictates, somebody failed to do their homework. If this was the only planet that was incorrectly and conveniently stuffed into The Centrality in the "The Essential Atlas", I would not mention it. However it seems every planet mentioned in "The Lando Calrissian Adventures" has been stuffed into a box we affectionately refer to as the "The Centrality" for sake of keeping all contained in those novels tucked into that corner of the galaxy. The original descriptions clearly do not match and should be noted. If we keep revising and retconning STAR WARS and forget where STAR WARS came from, we will eventually loose all STAR WARS history.-- Frank V Bonura 11:22, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, of course "somebody screwed up" is the real explanation. I'm just trying to think of an in-universe reason, that's half the fun of being here. Thanos6 01:31, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I have a novel idea, why can't we declare a newer source as being incorrect, and reverse this modern trend of historical revisionism? George Orwell anyone? -- Frank V Bonura 11:41, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Think of it like a puzzle, or trying to solve a mystery, or maybe a MENSA game. "Here are two seemingly irreconcilable facts. Find a way to make them reconcile." It's a fun mental exercise. Thanos6 16:08, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Or as Occam's Razor dictates, somebody failed to do their homework. If this was the only planet that was incorrectly and conveniently stuffed into The Centrality in the "The Essential Atlas", I would not mention it. However it seems every planet mentioned in "The Lando Calrissian Adventures" has been stuffed into a box we affectionately refer to as the "The Centrality" for sake of keeping all contained in those novels tucked into that corner of the galaxy. The original descriptions clearly do not match and should be noted. If we keep revising and retconning STAR WARS and forget where STAR WARS came from, we will eventually loose all STAR WARS history.-- Frank V Bonura 11:22, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
