I'm not super-Lungbarrow-girl or anything, but it was one of the good books, with well-developed world-building (in which the Looms are pretty culturally integral) and a lot of attention to canon, so I find it a bit rough to see it bashed so often. :)
My take on a lot of the books, actually, is that, rather than being canon or not-canon, they're Schroedingers-cat-style might-be-canon-if-you-don't-open-the-box. (If we've seen half a dozen Loch Ness Monsters, I'm very happy accepting other, more sensible, mutually exclusive canon.) So I don't feel a need to accept or reject the Looms; the way I see Who, they can be just as canonical as anything else I choose to think is plausible. Just, y'know, maybe not at the moment I want them not to be. :)
Wasn't losing the real Tardis in the AU a complete editing accident? :) I gather they didn't realize it until readers brought it up.
no subject
My take on a lot of the books, actually, is that, rather than being canon or not-canon, they're Schroedingers-cat-style might-be-canon-if-you-don't-open-the-box. (If we've seen half a dozen Loch Ness Monsters, I'm very happy accepting other, more sensible, mutually exclusive canon.) So I don't feel a need to accept or reject the Looms; the way I see Who, they can be just as canonical as anything else I choose to think is plausible. Just, y'know, maybe not at the moment I want them not to be. :)
Wasn't losing the real Tardis in the AU a complete editing accident? :) I gather they didn't realize it until readers brought it up.