In his blog entitled George Lucas and the Expanded Universe, Darth Talas provides some pretty convincing quotes from George Lucas (GL) and his consideration of the Expanded Universe (EU) as part of the Star Wars universe. While never using the word canon, GL does state that the works of the EU complement the films, as parts of the Star Wars universe not described in the films.

I added my two cents' worth to the roster of comments on Darth Talas' blog entry, but it got me thinking more about this while canon argument. It's something that I deal with regularly in my work on The Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia, because it may or may not limit what I add into the encyclopedia database.

To try and end the debate, if only in my mind, I went to the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary and looked up canon. Although most of the definitions were religious or legal in nature, there were two that stood out with respect to the Star Wars canon debate. From the primary definition of the noun canon, the second entry:

Canon - b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

Interesting, don't you think, that both the authentic works of a writer and the sanctioned body of related works are both considered canon?

Taking the next step, Meriam-Webster defines the verb sanction in this way (from the second entry):

Sanction - to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to

This is, in effect, what GL has done to the works of the EU. Because all of them are ultimately copyrighted by LucasFilm Limited (or Black Falcon Limited), GL has sanctioned them as part of the [i[Star Wars[/i[ universe.

By applying these definitions to the quotes compiled by Darth Talas, it becomes obvious that the six Star Wars films created by GL are the "authentic works of a writer," and that the EU forms the "sanctioned body of related works." By definition, then, they are all to be considered canon, albeit "from a certain point of view."

Using the example I gave in my comment: let's say that there are four bystanders who witness a robbery. Even though each person sees that same series of events, they will probably provide different recountings when questioned later by the police or the media. One person - we'll call him George - will tell the story of the robbery by simply restate the facts. Another person will wildly exaggerate the events of the robbery, possibly including a car chase and a gun fight, while including themselves as the "hero" of the tale. A third person will take the point of view of the robber, explaining that they needed the cash to pay for their child's brain tumor surgery. The last person will take the point of view of the victim, explaining that the stolen cash was going to be used to buy toys for the local orphanage.

Every one of these stories is valid, from a certain point of view. OK, maybe the exaggeration isn't valid, but it will contain some nuggets of truth (the robbery did occur, after all). George's story may be considered the "authentic" version, but the others are related by the fact that they all pertain to the same event: the robbery.

In writing this, I'm reminded of the flak surrounding the "Who Shot First?" arguments that happened in the wake of the Special Edition of Episode IV. In the original version of Episode IV, we get the story of how Han Solo killed Greedo in the Mos Eisley Cantina. We see Han Solo slowly pull out his blaster and shoot Greedo dead, more than likely in self-defense. Because we never see Greedo shoot, we assumed Han Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, when in fact, he's not. He proves his moral fiber later on by coming to the aid of Luke Skywalker during the Battle of Yavin.

With the Special Editions, we see another version of the story, in which Greedo does take the first shot. Han then kills Greedo in self-defense. GL has now contradicted his own "authentic" story, showing it from a different point of view. The fact of the matter, hoever, is that Han Solo shot Greedo in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Greedo's dead, and Han killed him. The exact nature of the retelling of the events may differ from person to person, but Greedo's still dead and Han still killed him.

(Being 41 years old, I saw the original Episode IV in the theaters, and Han's cold-blooded killing of Greedo only served to make the events of the Battle of Yavin more poignant.)

In working on the encyclopedia entries, I find myself trying to take on the role of the first person (George) in the example above, documenting the facts as laid out in the stories. However, I often find myself taking a pro-Alliance stance in some entries, simply because I sided with them as the "good guys" when I watched the films. I know that there are Imperial versions of all the events, and I've tried to capture them as appropriate. When I find something that is obviously stretching the limits of the above definitions of canon (most notably, "Tilotny Throws a Shape" from the Devilworlds comics, or anything from the "Infinities" series of comics), I tend to note that the events were part of rumors or popular legends, or even part of Imperial propaganda (see the entry for Justice Star).

Now, here's what I wanted to type in the comment to Darth Talas, but couldn't fit into the 750-character limit:

If you are part of the group that only wants to consider the six Star Wars films to be canon, so be it. Just don't bash the others who want to consider the EU as well.

If you are part of the group that wants to consider everything canon, so be it. Just don't bash the others who want to only consider the films.

Ultimately, it's all part of the Star Wars universe, if only by definition.

Star Wars is meant to be fun. Let's all try to remember that.