I don't understand your point here. Nobody starts with a complete vision. You might think you do, or you might have some vision when you begin that feels complete (feels and is are two different things), but then you start writing, and things change. When you start writing things always change, at least they do if you have any talent for writing. So if this is supposed to be a criticism I don't follow--you'd be criticizing every talented writer who ever lived.CarlZog said:I only meant to debunk what I perceived as a false belief among the most fanatical that Lucas had had started out with some detailed, grandiose vision of what’s become the Star Wars universe.
First, I wouldn't give any special weight to what Lucas says occured in the process of writing the Star Wars movies now. His statements aren't exactly sterling evidence (unless you happen to want to believe them, in which case clearly they are canon--but you already said there is no canon, so there goes that). If it were something that interested me, I'd want to go back and actually see the drafts, omissions, changes myself. Textual criticism can actually be really fun, as Professor Tolkien knew.CarlZog said:I've met so many fans who adhere to the belief that Lucas is some kind of sci-fi Tolkien, who had this expansive world and its structures already planned out in detail from the get-go
Second, how the movies arrived at their final form is ultimately irrelevant to an appreciation of the movies themselves as they are. Whether you believe Lucas planned the movies as they are from the beginning (impossible), or slowly developed them into what they have become, they are still what they are. The final results, the movies themselves, do not change, so this sort of picking over process is fairly meaningless (of course some minor changes were made with the special editions; people who let that adversely affect their experience of the movies are being silly).
Third, Lucas is a kind of sci-fi Tolkien. This judgment has less to do with elevating Lucas than with taking Tolkien down a peg from the religious stature you've given him here. You believe, what, that several thousand pages came to Tolkien in a flash? That he was channeling some divine Muse? As long as you're ranting about the 'faithful,' you might want to examine your own beliefs. Tolkien's stature has to do with his public, not with any special qualities of his writing (of course his public will claim otherwise). Lucas' stature is comparable. They're both good fun.
Any fictional setting, or writing of any kind, is to some extent collaborative. Everybody has sources, everybody gets notes, develops, revises. The stories aren't born full-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. In the case of Star Wars, all roads lead through Lucas. What more canon, exactly, are you looking for?CarlZog said:Yes, I know the meaning of the word, “canon”. But I think it’s grossly overused and not particularly applicable to any collaborative fictional settings -- due in part to the connotation of ultimate authority that it conveys. However, if the idea helps frame your discussions of material and distinquish between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’, so be it.