1

Leia openly admitted her belief that they got off too easily from Death Star - they only sent 4 fighters after them instead of hundreds. So she knew she was being tracked (the 1976 novelization 100% confirms that with more details).

If so, why in the world did she make Han fly Millennium Falcon straight to Rebel main base on Yavin, leading Death Star straight to it? (they didn't know where the base was before that!) - instead of, say, having Han fly her and Luke to some waypoint and changing ships on the way, or at the very least, scanning Millennium Falcon for tracking devices thoroughly for a week while hanging out in the middle of uninhabited space?

NOTE: Leia clearly did NOT give up Yavin to Imperials during interrogation, otherwise Vader and Tarkin wouldn't need the tracking device so much:

" I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work."

So, there doesn't seem to be any rush to reach Yavin ASAP.

DavidW
  • 128,443
  • 29
  • 545
  • 685
DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
  • Have you ever used a bathroom in an apartment shared by two bachelors? Now, imagine it with an airplane toilet and one of the bachelors is covered in fur. You'd be in a hurry to get where you're going, too. – Politank-Z Dec 02 '15 at 18:42

1 Answers1

0

You don't need the novelization. She says so in the film:

"They're tracking us! It's the only explanation for the ease of our escape."

Han refuses to consider that the Falcon is being tracked and shuts down the conversation.

"Not this ship sister."

So - she turns to banking on the info in R2.

"I hope when the data is analyzed a weakness can be found. It's not over yet..."

We don't know if she gave up the Rebel base after the Death Star popped Alderaan but it seems clear that she doesn't care or simply defers to Solo. In fact, in some ways it helps - by bringing the Imperials to them, the Rebels can fight on their terms and territory. Saves fuel costs too...

NKCampbell
  • 39,978
  • 13
  • 149
  • 203
  • If she gave the info, they wouldn't need to worry about the tracking device, which they are. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 02 '15 at 18:44
  • 1
    Except they aren't really. Since, as you rightly say - they (apparently) just continue on their merry way to the secret rebel base. She is a politician after all - she may just be establishing plausible deniability... ;) – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 18:45
  • 1
    " I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work." - yes they are. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 02 '15 at 18:46
  • And, in Vader's defense, it did work...mostly. – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 18:48
  • 1
    The novelisations don't have "dubious canonical pedigree", they've always been considered to be G-canon and now Disney Canon where they explain the events of the films. – Valorum Dec 02 '15 at 18:51
  • There are numerous discrepancies in the novel and film and this thread indicates that G-Canon is now Legends:

    http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/910/how-is-canonicity-of-derivative-works-determined-for-star-wars/80098#80098

    But, I'll remove that editorial comment :)

     – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 18:56
  • (cont) - from a comment in that thread:

    "The ruling is that the novelisations are mixed canon. Where they show events that happened in the films, they're canon. Where they show events that didn't happen in the films, they're "legends" canon (e.g. non-canon)."

    that's dubious pedigree to me :)

     – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 18:58
  • @DVK - I was misreading your comment "if she gave the info they wouldn't need to worry about the tracking device" I was reading they to mean Han / Leia / Luke. Not the Imperials. So when I said, "they aren't worrying about it" - I was saying the rebels aren't worried about. Sorry for the confusion! – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 19:05
  • @NathanK.Campbell Not going to comment on the canonicity of the 40-year-old novelization, but the answer you link to indicates that the former G-Canon was rolled into the current Disney canon, not legends. The current Legends consists of some T-Canon (the cell-shaped Clone Wars show) and most everything below – Jason Baker Dec 02 '15 at 19:41
  • @JasonBaker did you see the additional comment by Richard? (I also included it above) It seems to indicate that the novels are only canon where they are consistent with the films.

    It would be helpful if there was a definitive source for this info - Wookieepedia as well as SW.com seem to indicate only the films, Clone Wars, and Rebels, and any new books, comics are valid. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've just yet to see a source that contradicts these:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon --- http://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page

     – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 19:50
  • As I said, I have no interest in arguing over the canonicity of the novelization. I only wanted to correct your misconception that G-Canon was converted into Legends – Jason Baker Dec 02 '15 at 19:51
  • 1
    (sidenote: don't forget to @-reply; you get all notifcations here, because this is your post, but I don't). Del Rey Books? http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Yes_The_Star_Wars_Movie_Novelizations_Are_Canon_157749.asp Admittedly I can't remember when the new novelizations were announced, but I'm fair sure it was in 2015, after those tweets from Del Rey – Jason Baker Dec 02 '15 at 20:00
  • @JasonBaker thanks for the @ reminder and the info - and I think their second tweet makes my inital point that the orginal novels are dubious and not to be entirely trusted - DelRey says: "To clarify, movie novelizations are canon where they align with what is seen on screen in the 6 films and the Clone Wars animated movie." So they are only reliable when consistent. In other words, if somebody were to ask "did Luke's landspeeder have a closed cockpit" the answer is 'no' because it wasn't closed in the film, despite what the novel says. Does that make sense?(and truly - thanks for the info!) – NKCampbell Dec 02 '15 at 20:05