Sin is literally a transgression or violation against a law. It's not hard to apply that concept to other uses. However, the word "sin" has certain connotations. It implies a moral transgression rather than a general transgression. In proper English, one wouldn't describe a parking infraction as a sin. There's even some specific Catholic sin concepts that do go along with your thinking. Mortal sins, venial sins, etc. can be used in non-religious settings despite their religious roots. However, the term "Original Sin" is irretrievably religious and generally Catholic. Original Sin is a specific Christian concept referring to a sin committed by Adam and Eve and inherited by all of their offspring. Judaism nor Islam has it. It is not used in any other context except to invoke the first sin of mankind. Now, it can perhaps be used metaphorically in non-Christian contexts, but it's still meant to evoke the concept of a primary sin that is revisited upon heirs. I think that's what you are getting at. Despite its religious meanings it can be used in non-religious contexts meant to merely evoke the idea. The difference is that it is being used correctly. The meaning is right. With immaculate conception, when used metaphorically to evoke the virgin birth of Christ in comparison to the subject in discussion (be it Anakin or Perseus), it doesn't matter, it's still the wrong term. It's like talking about fruit and picking up a tomato and calling it a banana. It doesn't matter if a million people call it a banana, it's still a tomato. Some people do use it out of ignorance. Once they have been educated, they lose the excuse.

Our concern is not that you are using a religious phrase. I'm an atheist. I just care about using the correct phrase. Using a malapropism makes the user sound like Don King or even Tony Soprano. It has no place in a serious discussion, which I consider the Secret History of Star Wars to be.

Anyway, as I said, I really didn't want to make it a big deal (someone came in and repeated verbatim everything I had said which makes it seem like ganging up). You've corrected it, which is all we asked. I suppose now we're just getting caught up in trying to convince you. Either you are going to be convinced or you won't. It can't be forced. All I can do is point out the fallacy and let it go. It's not really important. I've been doing it since Phantom Menace came out (the phrase never really came up in conversation much until Anakin, hence most people's confusion-They hear the term and it seems to be an elegant way of referring to the virgin birth. Most people are shocked to find out it actually refers to such an esoteric concept.) and I probably will keep on. I'm the kind of person that when I get an email forward, I do the research (never takes more than a couple minutes) and send it back to everyone on the list pointing out what complete nonsense the letter is and how they should look this stuff up before they send it out (Barack Obama did not swear in on a Koran, for example). After a while they stop sending them to me. Most people would rather wallow in ignorance than embrace the truth. Sometimes I get carried away. If this whole discussion seemed that way then I apologize. It really was meant to be nothing more than a typo correction. Again, keep up the good work. We really all appreciate it.

Congrats on the major blog run of late! Have you figured out what sparked this interest?
none

I was curious why the third edition would all of a sudden gain notoriety on sites like <a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/21/2250231" title="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/21/2250231" target="_blank">/.</a>, etc. (i've seen your ebook mentioned in places i wasn't expecting) great to see, i guess with Indy/George connection people are itching for tie-in topics of merit.
none

It's been corrected?

Congratulations for your achievement. Is the HTML version of the book actually available?

Just finished reading the print edition. Wonderful job, though it looks like you could release a second edition (typos, awkward sentences, etc).

 

Perhaps a "Special Edition" where you can show us what you "always intended" to have written? ;)

 

It's definitely a page turner and I've only encountered a few people who refuse to read it because they think it's "paranoid" and "Lucas bashing" (which if they actually read it they'd realize it is far from that).

 

(Just so everyone knows, I realize how hard it is to find and correct EVERY error in a long work, even professional scholars miss stuff, which is why we have editors, but even they are not perfect! Every book has a few errors. However if you DID make a second edition, there is stuff you could fix, and I just notice this in passing after reading a wonderfully entertaining and informative book)

Since someone bumped this thread, I'll throw in my comments.

I read Secret History a few months ago and was enthralled.  It was so refreshing and exciting to read a book by someone who maintained objectivity and skepticism about this subject, while unfailingly demonstrating a deep abiding appreciation and passion for the subject matter.

A rare thing, in the 'EU,' as it were.

I was left with just one big question: what is the nature of the dialogue in the partially-restored Biggs-in-the-hangar scene, which refers to 'father Skywalker' in a way inconsistent with 'father Vader'?  Secret History mentions it in passing, without ever quoting the dialogue.  If it is really inconsistent, I think that may be the strongest single piece of evidence for the book's central thesis.

[Of course, I can't help inserting on tiny nit-pick.  There are some serious, systemic 'who'/'whom' issues, overlooked by the editor!  I would love to take a crack at editing the 2013 edition!  I think the organization could be cleared of some topical redundancies as well.  But don't get me wrong--I loved in and devoured it very quickly!]