masterghandalf

Sorry for the late reply, but I do think this is really interesting, and I wanted to talk about my perspective.

First of all, I have not read any of these books. I am way less familiar with this topic than just about anyone else who might be invested in it. When I was younger, I was hungry for any information about the EU, but the easiest place to get that information was Wookieepedia, rather than any of the material where it originated. So, really, I have no right to judge or dissect any of this stuff. This is just my feelings, based on my vague impressions. That said...

Instead, the focus was mostly on relatively small-scale adventures that might impact the overall state of the galaxy but were mostly resolved at the end of the novel or trilogy.

Honestly, for the most part, I think this is best way to do post-Return-of-the-Jedi stories. At the end of the original trilogy, the good guys win, the galaxy is free, and there isn't really anywhere new villains could come from. I don't dislike NJO; again, it would be very unfair of me to dislike it without reading, but also, I don't think the core premise is bad. But it seems like the sort of thing that could only work once. If you tried to do something like it a second time, you'd need to have a second group of heretofore unknown aliens from beyond known space show up to wreak havoc, and that really strains credibility. Alternatively, you would have to have a new group of Sith show up out of nowhere and somehow get the resources necessary to conquer the galaxy every five years or so (which seems closer to what they actually went with), which also strains credibility. Like, are we really supposed to believe all of these huge, incredibly dangerous villains were just lying around for thousands of years, and nobody noticed them or did anything about them?

That's not to say there can't be long-running storylines, but...honestly, yes, they should be low-stakes, for the most part. Because the alternative is the writers pulling new evil empires out of absolutely nowhere, over and over and over again. Not to mention giving the sense that the good guys aren't actually accomplishing anything, with the galaxy never managing to escape the cycle of war and oppression. That's not to say the "warlord of the week" stories were good; some them do seem to have been quite bad. But you can have other kinds of villains, and other sources of conflict. The galaxy is a huge place, there are all kinds of bad guys that could be lurking in the shadows, and if the stakes are low enough, it's plausible that no one would have noticed them before now.

(though Exar Kun’s claim in the Jedi Academy books to having been the greatest of the Sith would become increasingly hilarious in hindsight as more ancient Sith factions and wars were retconned into being; even before Legends got declared non-canon, the dude would’ve been lucky to crack the top ten)

Really? Again, I haven't read those books or comics, but the vague impression I got was that he was more powerful than most (he never lost a direct fight, and just the energy released on his death nearly destroyed Yavin), and he seems to have been a greater threat to the Republic than anyone save Vitiate, and perhaps Revan and Malak. Ajunta Pall and Naga Sadow were crushed almost out of the gate, Darth Bane was technically the most successful Sith Lord, but only a thousand years after his death, and the rest were mostly warlords who never really posed an existential threat to the galaxy. Based, again, just on vague impressions, I'd rank Exar behind only Vitiate in terms of raw personal power, and third or fourth in terms of the threat he posed, depending on how you count Bane. Although, given the modern anime fandom, it is very to take him seriously when his name is "Exar-kun."

I always found it a bit weird that the Vong were criticized for feeling like they didn’t fit in with the setting when, well, that’s the point; they don’t

Point, but if you make them a such a major part of the setting (well, temporarily a major part of the setting, in this case), it's not going to feel as much like "the Star Wars setting" as it used to. Once the initial shock of their introduction wears off, they're going to be...there, clashing with everyone else, and it arguably diminishes the sense of consistent, unified design which Star Wars is usually pretty good at sticking to. But that's very subjective, honestly; it hard to really measure what does and does not "fit;" I can see the argument, but it doesn't bother me quite as much as...

they also spend a lot of the first have of the series steamrolling their way to victory a bit too easily, with the plot (especially in Jedi Eclipse and Balance Point) feeling like it’s going out of its way to hand them victories, before we get to the back half of the series where the Vong become much more fallible

...That. That's my main problem with the Yuuzhan Vong (from what I've read about them, that is). It makes no sense to me that they could steamroll the New Republic like this. What advantages do they even have over the New Republic? Whichever you compare them to, the Borg and the Dominion both have huge power bases, far larger than any faction in the Alpha Quadrant, and the Borg have technology so much more advanced than anyone else's that they could never be defeated in a straight-up fight, only with clever tricks. The Yuuzhan Vong, on the other hand, have just been drifting through space for hundreds of years, with nothing to extra resources from except what they brought with them. They're less the Borg or Dominion and more the humans from Battlestar Galactica. And for the most part, their weapons and tactics don't seem to be superior to the Republic's; their weapons are made differently and draw power from different sources, but their capabilities seem to be about the same. Is it that they can use any organic matter as a resource? That could indeed give them a big logistical advantage (in fact, it would almost make them like the Mongols, on a galactic scale), but I'm not sure it outweighs the logistical advantage of controlling most of the galaxy, especially since the Vong can't exactly make use of any manufacturing or infrastructure they capture (even the Mongols co-opted local leaders and infrastructure to a much greater degree than the Vong seem to).

Though, incidentally, I think this is one example of how the course wars in fiction, especially "good vs. evil" wars, is often very heavily influenced by World War II, what with the bad guys rapidly conquering large amounts of territory, only for the good guys to miraculously turn the tide and roll right back over them. Except, in real life, the nazis only got as far as they did due to a very specific combination of factors, and they were never going to win in the long run. Although, I suppose it could be the other way around - we tell stories where the good guys are on the verge of defeat, only to miraculously prevail, because it's more exciting, and then we project that narrative onto World War II. Though I honestly can't think of any pre-World War II stories that follow the formula of "The bad guys easily conquer everything, then get reconquered just as easily" that closely, besides maybe the Silmarillion.

And of course, there’s Vergere, the NJO’s big enigma and one of its most important characters thematically

Okay, again, never read the books, this is more the image of Vergere I have in my head than the actual Vergere. But she is my single most hated character post-Return-of-the-Jedi. I hate it when Star Wars author (published or fanfic) try to muddy the waters between the Light Side and the Dark Side. Yes, people are more complicated than good and evil, but the Light Side and the Dark Side are good and evil in their purest forms; they are, respectively, the ideal we should aspire to, and the temptations that drag us down. Overcomplicating that just ruins the central theme of the series. Kreia is a similar kind of character, but she's a villain, who you can argue back with, and her ideas aren't supposed to be the whole truth. Also, it's very hard to get me to sympathize with what is basically a fascist collaborator and torturer, and Vergere does not seem to have enough redeeming qualities to manage it.

I’ll admit religious studies is my academic area in real life and I could probably write a whole paper just on Traitor, but it’s a fascinating book that, at least from my reading, seems to incorporate elements of Christian, Buddhist and Daoist mysticism

But my question is, should it? Don't get me wrong, it does sound interesting, but does it really fit with what the Force is supposed to be? It seems to me like Zoroastrianism would be a more appropriate model - and possibly an intentional one, considering the original name for the Light Side was "Ashla." Not to say that it directly maps onto it, or even that's it an accurate representation, but it seems more like what the original portrayal of the Force was going for.

The fanon that “the Empire could’ve totally stopped the Vong!” (which is brought up repeatedly – and repeatedly mocked – in the NJO itself) certainly doesn’t help matters.

Well, don't you know? Fascists are always better at war! Remember those major wars the fascists won, like, uh...And really, the Vong could arguably be the lesser evil, compared to the Empire. At least they only destroy planets when they have a real strategic reason to, instead of just to try to make a point. And even some high-ranking Vong have positive qualities, and are capable of redeeming themselves, in a way most high-ranking imperials don't and aren't. Heck, it might be interesting to see an AU story where the Yuuzhan Vong and the rebellion team up.

Seriously, though, this was an interesting read, so thank you, and I look forward to the more in-depth "Legacy" reviews.