Not what I meant. The book was the official continuation of the Star Wars story. It was edited by George Lucas so it would fit what he had in mind for the movie sequel at that time.
It was commissioned as a possible continuation of the story, but that was already discounted by the time that it was published. It was the success of Star Wars that sealed it's fate, at the point you got to read it the book was already no different to any of the other expanded universe stories that the films have been free to ignore ever since. George lost all interest in it after Star Wars was released, so we can't know if there would have been any changes between the release of Star Wars and the release of the book had it been the basis for the next film.
We also don't know if there would have been changes from the book to the subsequent film as the novel of the 1977 film is different to the film.
How do you reconcile the fact Luke met, fought and defeated Darth Vader, chopping off his arm, with the story of ESB?
Splinter contradicts Star Wars in several places, so it's not a reliable story. Maybe it came to us told by spice pirates and some details were changed a long the way?
I think I made a pretty good case that ESB was a large enough shift in tone and story for some people at the time to reject it as a "true" continuation. I'm not sure I get your point.
I don't think you made that case at all, my recollection is that everyone loved ESB. If you're saying Last Jedi introducing plot devices that makes every previous film meaningless is equivalent to how ESB was darker than Star Wars, then I don't see that you've made that case or that there is a case that could be made.
Last Jedi is like (a fictional) Liam Neeson trying to do improvisational comedy
Rian Johnson's only defense seems to be that JJ Abrams messed up The Force Awakens first, so he didn't think anyone would mind his giant turd of a movie. He's got a point about JJ, but it would be like saying it's ok to kill someone because they were late returning a library book.
