VH-2 invalidated

[ManofTheAtom]

That looks interesting, but I think the finished version worked out better, heh.

I like the VH1 character of Bloodshot and what VanHook did with him. We don't know how Shooter's version would have compared, but that's not the point I'm talking about.

It's about the scientific, credible science fiction approach of Vh1 and when that changed. Just compare the 2 concepts.

Rising Spirit aka Rai the First - No super powers, master of all types of weapons. One could assume that whatever mental powers he developed were going to lead to the Rai powers we saw in the OG Rai - mentally creating weapons through the power of focus. Shooter has said many times he wanted all Valiant powers to be "Powers of the Mind".

Bloodshot - A mobster who is also a Harbinger that has the power the control all machines (similar to Ax's power), who also just so happens to randomly be chosen for a mysterious super soldier program that injects him with nano-computer blood. This blood also happens to be such a rare creation that it can't ever be duplicated in 2000 years despite massive advancements in robotics technology and the presence of thousands (millions?) of Harbingers.

It's obvious one of these concepts was trying to make a more grounded, realistic approach to a "butt kicking" character, while the other one is much more in the realm of sci-fi fantasy aka Marvel/DC.

There's a lot of post-Unity that I like, but it definitely doesn't all hold up as one airtight, hard sci-fi universe.

Fantasy doesn't enter into it, though.

Fantasy is Lord of the Rings. Science Fiction is Star Trek.

VALIANT was the latter.

As for which version might have been better, I can't say because I don't know that much about Shooter's original concept.

Can you define the difference between sci-fi and fantasy? Sci-fi inherently has to have some fantastic elements. Otherwise it becomes just fiction. Star Trek had to use a little bit of fantasy at its best and at its Strange New Worst. Wish granting machines are fantastical. There is no beginning to the first Valiant universe (second? As a continuation of Magnus 4000?) without a little bit of fantasy, no matter how many anti-proton pumps you attach to that wish granting machine.

Sci-fi cannot be totally divorced from fantasy but fantasy can be devoid of sci-fi. Unless Anatar somehow worked microcircuitry into the one ring.

The main difference between science fiction (sci-fi) and fantasy is that sci-fi is grounded in scientific principles, while fantasy deals with the impossible:

Setting

Science fiction often takes place in the future or alternate universes, and features space travel, time travel, and advanced technology. Fantasy settings are often worlds populated by mythical creatures and supernatural events, and may be similar to our own world but with fantastical elements.

Plausibility

Science fiction stories are based on elements of the modern world and try to predict how they could develop. Fantasy uses supernatural elements that have no link to the contemporary world.

Internal logic

Both genres need internal consistency and logic, but in fantasy, the writer creates the rules, whereas, in science fiction, nature and physics dictate the rules.

Themes

Science fiction often addresses themes like human exploration, the consequences of advanced technology, and ethical dilemmas. Fantasy often features themes like good vs. evil, the heroic quest for power or knowledge, and tradition vs. change.

Examples

Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton is an example of science fiction, while The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien is an example of fantasy.

Phil's transformation into Solar absolutely falls into the category of addressing the consequences of advanced technology (i.e., the Edgewater reactor being the advanced technology and the VALIANT Universe being the consequence of it).

While any sufficiently advanced form of technology can be indistinguishable from magic, you'd likely never be able to use science to explain dragons evolving into chickens...

[ManofTheAtom]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

[Ryan]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

The only thing people are objecting to in this thread is your convoluted head canon explanations for what parts of Valiant history are valid or invalid.

[Ryan]

Fantasy doesn't enter into it, though.

Fantasy is Lord of the Rings. Science Fiction is Star Trek.

VALIANT was the latter.

As for which version might have been better, I can't say because I don't know that much about Shooter's original concept.

Do you understand that what's called science fiction exists on a spectrum between hard science fiction (having very few speculative elements, all based on science, writers usually have a background in science) and soft science fiction aka science fiction fantasy which may have the trappings of science fiction but don't try to relate all of their speculative elements to a scientific or realistic basis. Like Star Wars, Marvel, etc.

Star Trek leans to the hard side of the spectrum but with plenty of doses of soft sci-fi (fantasy).

Fantasy in this sense means 'fantastical elements'. Not the entirely separate genre of Fantasy or High Fantasy that includes Lord of the Rings and the like.

[ManofTheAtom]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

The only thing people are objecting to in this thread is your convoluted head canon explanations for what parts of Valiant history are valid or invalid.

You're objecting to my using VALIANT canon to explain away the things that invalidate it, like X-O Manowar meeting Iron Man, whose universe had been established as being fictional multiple times across several different comics prior to that crossover.

When DC did their Worlds Collide crossover between the Superman comics and the Milestone Media comics the members of the Blood Syndicate directly addressed the fact that in their universe Superman is fictional.

Had the X-O Manowar/Iron Man crossover adhered to the rules of the VALIANT Universe, someone from the VALIANT Universe would have made a similar remark about Iron Man.

[ManofTheAtom]

Fantasy doesn't enter into it, though.

Fantasy is Lord of the Rings. Science Fiction is Star Trek.

VALIANT was the latter.

As for which version might have been better, I can't say because I don't know that much about Shooter's original concept.

Do you understand that what's called science fiction exists on a spectrum between hard science fiction (having very few speculative elements, all based on science, writers usually have a background in science) and soft science fiction aka science fiction fantasy which may have the trappings of science fiction but don't try to relate all of their speculative elements to a scientific or realistic basis. Like Star Wars, Marvel, etc.

Star Trek leans to the hard side of the spectrum but with plenty of doses of soft sci-fi (fantasy).

Fantasy in this sense means 'fantastical elements'. Not the entirely separate genre of Fantasy or High Fantasy that includes Lord of the Rings and the like.

And do you understand that the point of VALIANT was to lean more toward one side than the other?

It's as I've asked you before, what is it that you want to see back from VH-1, the artistic renditions of the '90s VALIANT characters or the level of writing of the Pre-Unity comics?

Unity 2000 leaned toward the side of soft science fiction as a consequence of having to deal with all the VALIANT Universe as a whole turning into a replica of DC and Marvel.

Had it instead continued to adhere to the foundation of the original VALIANT Universe it would have been something entirely diferent.

[Ryan]

And do you understand that the point of VALIANT was to lean more toward one side than the other?

It's as I've asked you before, what is it that you want to see back from VH-1, the artistic renditions of the '90s VALIANT characters or the level of writing of the Pre-Unity comics?

Unity 2000 leaned toward the side of soft science fiction as a consequence of having to deal with all the VALIANT Universe as a whole turning into a replica of DC and Marvel.

Had it instead continued to adhere to the foundation of the original VALIANT Universe it would have been something entirely different.

Why not both?

They could have returned to pre-Unity level of writing any time they wanted to, it doesn't require using any specific iterations of the characters. But they either don't want to or don't know how to.

[ManofTheAtom]

And do you understand that the point of VALIANT was to lean more toward one side than the other?

It's as I've asked you before, what is it that you want to see back from VH-1, the artistic renditions of the '90s VALIANT characters or the level of writing of the Pre-Unity comics?

Unity 2000 leaned toward the side of soft science fiction as a consequence of having to deal with all the VALIANT Universe as a whole turning into a replica of DC and Marvel.

Had it instead continued to adhere to the foundation of the original VALIANT Universe it would have been something entirely different.

Why not both?

They could have returned to pre-Unity level of writing any time they wanted to, it doesn't require using any specific iterations of the characters. But they either don't want to or don't know how to.

If you want the level of writing, that means adhering to the ideas of strong continuity, hard science, etc, and that Marvel characters are fictional.

I believe that the point of contention between you and me on this topic is that you want to wave the proverbial magic wand to just outright ignore everything that happened at VALIANT as if it never happened, whereas I want to outright address it within the story using the rules of the VALIANT Universe established before Shooter's departure.

[Ryan]

Why not both?

They could have returned to pre-Unity level of writing any time they wanted to, it doesn't require using any specific iterations of the characters. But they either don't want to or don't know how to.

If you want the level of writing, that means adhering to the ideas of strong continuity, hard science, etc, and that Marvel characters are fictional.

I believe that the point of contention between you and me on this topic is that you want to wave the proverbial magic wand to just outright ignore everything that happened at VALIANT as if it never happened, whereas I want to outright address it within the story using the rules of the VALIANT Universe established before Shooter's departure.

No I wouldn't do the magic wand approach. I would try to incorporate everything, but that doesn't mean I would have to explain everything from the outset. Initially the stories would have to grab readers and I don't think explaining away tons of obscure continuity is the way to do that.

So the point of contention is more that I think they could just go back to using a more grounded approach (pre-Unity rules) in the stories without having to do a huge explanation or anything. Just start doing it.

The point I've been trying to make with the Bloodshot example is that every version of Valiant since Unity has not been trying to use those 'rules', and that's been a choice. They've all had other priorities that were more important.

For post-Unity, Layton wanted to be more like Marvel and Image, because they were what was hot and what he was more comfortable with. Same with Nicieza and VH2. VEI wanted to make the characters sellable in Hollywood as MCU-type concepts. DMG has been scattershot trying a little bit of every approach, but definitely not committed to doing a scientifically plausible universe in the spirit of pre-Unity.

[ManofTheAtom]

Why not both?

They could have returned to pre-Unity level of writing any time they wanted to, it doesn't require using any specific iterations of the characters. But they either don't want to or don't know how to.

If you want the level of writing, that means adhering to the ideas of strong continuity, hard science, etc, and that Marvel characters are fictional.

I believe that the point of contention between you and me on this topic is that you want to wave the proverbial magic wand to just outright ignore everything that happened at VALIANT as if it never happened, whereas I want to outright address it within the story using the rules of the VALIANT Universe established before Shooter's departure.

No I wouldn't do the magic wand approach. I would try to incorporate everything, but that doesn't mean I would have to explain everything from the outset. Initially the stories would have to grab readers and I don't think explaining away tons of obscure continuity is the way to do that.

So the point of contention is more that I think they could just go back to using a more grounded approach (pre-Unity rules) in the stories without having to do a huge explanation or anything. Just start doing it.

The point I've been trying to make with the Bloodshot example is that every version of Valiant since Unity has not been trying to use those 'rules', and that's been a choice. They've all had other priorities that were more important.

For post-Unity, Layton wanted to be more like Marvel and Image, because they were what was hot and what he was more comfortable with. Same with Nicieza and VH2. VEI wanted to make the characters sellable in Hollywood as MCU-type concepts. DMG has been scattershot trying a little bit of every approach, but definitely not committed to doing a scientifically plausible universe in the spirit of pre-Unity.

Having worked with Dinesh during the early days of VEI I can say that -- at least to my perspective -- the idea that he did it with Hollywood in mind is bogus.

Maybe his investors did. Cuneo and the like. But I wouldn't ascribe that to him.

Addressing the crux of the VALIANT Universe need not be the start of the story, but doing it should be part of it.

[Ryan]

Having worked with Dinesh during the early days of VEI I can say that -- at least to my perspective -- the idea that he did it with Hollywood in mind is bogus.

Maybe his investors did. Cuneo and the like. But I wouldn't ascribe that to him.

Addressing the crux of the VALIANT Universe need not be the start of the story, but doing it should be part of it.

Hmm yeah I guess that's just the impression I got reading them. I thought the point was always to have the comics be a launching point into other media?

It certainly didn't feel like they were trying to stick to strict pre-Unity rules. No real time, no explanation as to why exactly all these fantastical things were suddenly happening in the world all at once. It just felt more rules-lite to me, like MCU. Realistic on the surface but not when you examine it too closely.

[ManofTheAtom]

Having worked with Dinesh during the early days of VEI I can say that -- at least to my perspective -- the idea that he did it with Hollywood in mind is bogus.

Maybe his investors did. Cuneo and the like. But I wouldn't ascribe that to him.

Addressing the crux of the VALIANT Universe need not be the start of the story, but doing it should be part of it.

Hmm yeah I guess that's just the impression I got reading them. I thought the point was always to have the comics be a launching point into other media?

It certainly didn't feel like they were trying to stick to strict pre-Unity rules. No real time, no explanation as to why exactly all these fantastical things were suddenly happening in the world all at once. It just felt more rules-lite to me, like MCU. Realistic on the surface but not when your examine it too closely.

They were missing the Solar factor for sure. Which doesn't mean Dinesh would not have ever introduced one.

In Archer & Armstrong they did explain how immortals work, and in Legends of the Geomancer they explained that concept.

Real time progression would have been interesting for sure.

[Chiclo]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

Because Clarke's Law is a law of fiction, not a scientific law. It is like Chekov's gun, not every gun shown ever goes off in the third act in the real world.

[ManofTheAtom]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

Because Clarke's Law is a law of fiction, not a scientific law. It is like Chekov's gun, not every gun shown ever goes off in the third act in the real world.

But that's not an argument you'd make about a TV series, book, or movie about a comic book geek that grows up to become a fusion physicist that creates an advanced machine indistinguishable from magic that turns him into his favorite comic book superhero.

[Ryan]

They were missing the Solar factor for sure. Which doesn't mean Dinesh would not have ever introduced one.

In Archer & Armstrong they did explain how immortals work, and in Legends of the Geomancer they explained that concept.

Real time progression would have been interesting for sure.

I think it was more that none of the creators came from wanting to tell those kind of stories. The EiC was from Marvel Knights which was like a more 'edgy' version of some of the street level and b-list Marvel characters. And the writers were mostly from Top Shelf Comix doing indy books and were not Valiant fans.

So you end up with something that's a lot like Marvel Knights and Ultimate Marvel mixed with some artsy bits of Top Shelf Comix. Certainly an eclectic mix that really seemed to work well for certain types of readers.

I'm not knocking it, they obviously had some success with that approach. I'm just saying it was never trying to follow the rules of pre-Unity, nor was it particularly inspired by pre-Unity Valiant except for taking some of the character concepts and some of the major plot points.

[ManofTheAtom]

They were missing the Solar factor for sure. Which doesn't mean Dinesh would not have ever introduced one.

In Archer & Armstrong they did explain how immortals work, and in Legends of the Geomancer they explained that concept.

Real time progression would have been interesting for sure.

I think it was more that none of the creators came from wanting to tell those kind of stories. The EiC was from Marvel Knights which was like a more 'edgy' version of some of the street level and b-list Marvel characters. And the writers were mostly from Top Shelf Comix doing indy books and were not Valiant fans.

So you end up with something that's a lot like Marvel Knights and Ultimate Marvel mixed with some artsy bits of Top Shelf Comix. Certainly an eclectic mix that really seemed to work well for certain fans.

I'm not knocking it, they obviously had some success with that approach. I'm just saying it was never trying to follow the rules of pre-Unity, nor was it particularly inspired by pre-Unity Valiant except for taking some of the character concepts and some of the major plot points.

Was Simmons from Max? I cannot recall. I remember he edited Supreme Power after it moved from Max to not-quite-Marvel.

[Ryan]

They were missing the Solar factor for sure. Which doesn't mean Dinesh would not have ever introduced one.

In Archer & Armstrong they did explain how immortals work, and in Legends of the Geomancer they explained that concept.

Real time progression would have been interesting for sure.

I think it was more that none of the creators came from wanting to tell those kind of stories. The EiC was from Marvel Knights which was like a more 'edgy' version of some of the street level and b-list Marvel characters. And the writers were mostly from Top Shelf Comix doing indy books and were not Valiant fans.

So you end up with something that's a lot like Marvel Knights and Ultimate Marvel mixed with some artsy bits of Top Shelf Comix. Certainly an eclectic mix that really seemed to work well for certain fans.

I'm not knocking it, they obviously had some success with that approach. I'm just saying it was never trying to follow the rules of pre-Unity, nor was it particularly inspired by pre-Unity Valiant except for taking some of the character concepts and some of the major plot points.

Was Simmons from Max? I cannot recall. I remember he edited Supreme Power after it moved from Max to not-quite-Marvel.

What I remember is that he was from Marvel Knights, involved with the successful Iron Fist series with Fraction, Brubaker, and David Aja. I didn't know he was doing Max as well but that would make sense, they're both pretty small imprints and similar.

[ManofTheAtom]

They were missing the Solar factor for sure. Which doesn't mean Dinesh would not have ever introduced one.

In Archer & Armstrong they did explain how immortals work, and in Legends of the Geomancer they explained that concept.

Real time progression would have been interesting for sure.

I think it was more that none of the creators came from wanting to tell those kind of stories. The EiC was from Marvel Knights which was like a more 'edgy' version of some of the street level and b-list Marvel characters. And the writers were mostly from Top Shelf Comix doing indy books and were not Valiant fans.

So you end up with something that's a lot like Marvel Knights and Ultimate Marvel mixed with some artsy bits of Top Shelf Comix. Certainly an eclectic mix that really seemed to work well for certain fans.

I'm not knocking it, they obviously had some success with that approach. I'm just saying it was never trying to follow the rules of pre-Unity, nor was it particularly inspired by pre-Unity Valiant except for taking some of the character concepts and some of the major plot points.

Was Simmons from Max? I cannot recall. I remember he edited Supreme Power after it moved from Max to not-quite-Marvel.

What I remember is that he was from Marvel Knights, involved with the successful Iron Fist series with Fraction, Brubaker, and David Aja. I didn't know he was doing Max as well but that would make sense, they're both pretty small imprints and similar.

I recall thinking that, based on Supreme Power, my overall opinion of Simmons was that he was a good fit to oversee VALIANT.

While the Max version of Supreme Power was more violent and graphic in terms of nudity and such, the Max-less version still retained elements of it taking place in a real-world setting much like VALIANT's.

[Chiclo]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

Because Clarke's Law is a law of fiction, not a scientific law. It is like Chekov's gun, not every gun shown ever goes off in the third act in the real world.

But that's not an argument you'd make about a TV series, book, or movie about a comic book geek that grows up to become a fusion physicist that creates an advanced machine indistinguishable from magic that turns him into his favorite comic book superhero.

No, I think that's the argument you would make. I'd be willing to suspend my disbelief long enough to accept this magical mechanical wish machine gave Phil Seleski the ability to manifest a new universe.

[Ryan]

I recall thinking that, based on Supreme Power, my overall opinion of Simmons was that he was a good fit to oversee VALIANT.

While the Max version of Supreme Power was more violent and graphic in terms of nudity and such, the Max-less version still retained elements of it taking place in a real-world setting much like VALIANT's.

Yeah I can see that, I think I even read that series back then too.

The thing is since the early 2000s with Bendis, Ellis, Millar, etc. the whole 'realistic' real-world setting has become the standard across all comics. Like it still is today and in the movies.

But it's still not the same thing as what the New U and pre-U were trying to do.

Not saying he was bad or anything. Just that they weren't trying to do pre-U rules or be like pre-U.

[ManofTheAtom]

What is it exactly about the idea that Phil created a machine that reflects Clarke's third law that people object to?

As I said before, if this happened in ANY media OTHER than comics no one would object to it, but because DC's *SQUEE* comics from the '50s and '60s convinced people that superhero fiction must ONLY be fantastical they reject it.

The whole point of VALIANT was to do what DC and Marvel wouldn't.

Because Clarke's Law is a law of fiction, not a scientific law. It is like Chekov's gun, not every gun shown ever goes off in the third act in the real world.

But that's not an argument you'd make about a TV series, book, or movie about a comic book geek that grows up to become a fusion physicist that creates an advanced machine indistinguishable from magic that turns him into his favorite comic book superhero.

No, I think that's the argument you would make. I'd be willing to suspend my disbelief long enough to accept this magical mechanical wish machine gave Phil Seleski the ability to manifest a new universe.

But that is not what the machine did. All it did was transform him into Solar. He then used that power to change the universe from ours into the VALIANT Universe.

[ManofTheAtom]

I recall thinking that, based on Supreme Power, my overall opinion of Simmons was that he was a good fit to oversee VALIANT.

While the Max version of Supreme Power was more violent and graphic in terms of nudity and such, the Max-less version still retained elements of it taking place in a real-world setting much like VALIANT's.

Yeah I can see that, I think I even read that series back then too.

The thing is since the early 2000s with Bendis, Ellis, Millar, etc. the whole 'realistic' real-world setting has become the standard across all comics. Like it still is today and in the movies.

But it's still not the same thing as what the New U and pre-U were trying to do.

Not saying he was bad or anything. Just that they weren't trying to do pre-U rules or be like pre-U.

They were more like Shooter's VALIANT than VH-2, and that was good.

[Ryan]

I recall thinking that, based on Supreme Power, my overall opinion of Simmons was that he was a good fit to oversee VALIANT.

While the Max version of Supreme Power was more violent and graphic in terms of nudity and such, the Max-less version still retained elements of it taking place in a real-world setting much like VALIANT's.

Yeah I can see that, I think I even read that series back then too.

The thing is since the early 2000s with Bendis, Ellis, Millar, etc. the whole 'realistic' real-world setting has become the standard across all comics. Like it still is today and in the movies.

But it's still not the same thing as what the New U and pre-U were trying to do.

Not saying he was bad or anything. Just that they weren't trying to do pre-U rules or be like pre-U.

They were more like Shooter's VALIANT than VH-2, and that was good.

In overall quality maybe, but from a world building approach VEI and VH2 are quite similar. Rules-light, Marvel knights style.

[ManofTheAtom]

I recall thinking that, based on Supreme Power, my overall opinion of Simmons was that he was a good fit to oversee VALIANT.

While the Max version of Supreme Power was more violent and graphic in terms of nudity and such, the Max-less version still retained elements of it taking place in a real-world setting much like VALIANT's.

Yeah I can see that, I think I even read that series back then too.

The thing is since the early 2000s with Bendis, Ellis, Millar, etc. the whole 'realistic' real-world setting has become the standard across all comics. Like it still is today and in the movies.

But it's still not the same thing as what the New U and pre-U were trying to do.

Not saying he was bad or anything. Just that they weren't trying to do pre-U rules or be like pre-U.

They were more like Shooter's VALIANT than VH-2, and that was good.

In overall quality maybe, but from a world building approach VEI and VH2 are quite similar. Rules-light, Marvel knights style.

How so?

[Ryan]

How so?

What I mean by rules-light is that there isn't a strong, overriding editorial mandated overstory and editorial style that every book must write to and follow closely.

The rules-light approach will give you more flexibility and ability to attract bigger name creators because you can give them more creative freedom.

For example, look at Justin Jordan's Shadowman. Nothing about it seems to be written to flow out of the already established VEI world from the previous books. It looks like he was just given the broad outline of the character (Vh2 version) and told to come up with whatever he liked.

Same thing with Garth Ennis' version. It wasn't created to fit in with the other titles or the broader 'universe', just do your best to come up with a cool new premise for a character called Shadowman.

On the other end of the spectrum is pre-Unity Valiant. Strong editorial mandates on the style of storytelling, and a strong central story and set of rules that every book had to follow closely. That's why even when Shooter hired Englehart to write some of the books he would end up having to re-write a bunch of it to match the style better.

I'm not saying the pre-Unity is approach is sustainable or healthy, just pointing out the different approaches that were used.