Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the same plane that all fiction resides in? The one that it crafted for that universe? What "platonic plane" of "real reality of this fictional setting" does the Lord of the Rings inhabit? Star Wars? Star Trek?
It's called a Fictional Universe.

And surprisingly enough, none of those fictional setting have reality beyond the stories they're composed of. As a life long aficionado of both Middle-earth and Star Trek I can tell you that both of these setting contain incompatible and conflicting accounts and events (the latter much more than former, for obvious reasons.) None of these conflicts render any of the material noncanonical, nor is there some 'real right answer' to these conflicts. There is no one true answer to when the Federation first encountered the cloaking device. You can create headcanons in order to attempt to explain these conflicts, but those are just headcanons. As recent and blatant example, USS Enterprise NCC-1701 appeared ins Star Trek Discovery, and looks drastically different than it did in the original series. The exact same ship, roughly the same time period, in series that according the producers are supposed to be in continuity with each other (as strenuous as that claim may seem.) It would be pointless to argue which depiction of the ship is the 'real' Enterprise; they're both equally real and also incompatible. So in similar way all the accounts on who saved the Emperor can be equally 'real.'

In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.

You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.

That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.

No they wouldn't.

The accounts would be canon. The events within those accounts would not.*

Wrong. Again, the accounts are all there is, there is not some real reality behind them.

(Why am I spending my time explaining to people that fiction is not real?)

I am under no doubt that 40k isn't real. What I'm saying is that the universe within the fiction IS real. As in, there is reality within that fictional universe. You couldn't just waltz into Star Wars and say "nah, Luke never existed. Jedi neither." Luke and the Jedi are real within the universe of Star Wars. Why can events not also be real in the universe of 40k?

Seems like it's more than just myself. If it was just in my head, how come there's forums all about it, webpages like Lexicanum displaying the history and fact of 40k, and discussion in general?

Yes, you can collect the information in one place, just like Memory Alpha meticulously lists all facts that appear in Star Trek, conflicts and incompatibilities included.

But why then do people and pages alike show these "true events" and talk about them too, if it's only in my head?

You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.

No, it is you who does so. You for some reason seem not only to assume that there is some mysterious real reality behind all these stories, but that you have some magical ability to determine what it is.

Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.

Are you sure that this didn't happen in the secret real reality of 40K which exist somewhere independently of all the stories published?

Well, it could be. If it were the logical conclusion, drawn from the existing truths we know in the 40k universe, then yes, a grot would have saved the Emperor.

Nurglitch wrote:It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.

Oh, I don't mean that in general. It's not even about "storytelling" as such. It's more about universe and world building. To say that your universe has no facts, has no true factual outcomes? That ruins all interest in that universe, because what about that universe makes it special if it can't stick to a premise?

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.

I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.

No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.

Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.

Andykp wrote:
Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.

You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.

I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.

No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.

At the minute you are trying to set the standards, everyone else is wrong. And this idea that you have won any arguments is crazy. The standards we should adhere to as a community are surely the ones suggested by the producers of the material. And the points of these forums is to come and hear great ideas like nurglitches. Or the one about old ones or DAOT emperor. That’s fun to me and interesting because as the authors and producers say anything can happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.

You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'

I honestly don’t think you have understood a single thing I, and many others have tried to say to you on hear. U produce a quote and declare that it is fact. And no matter how many people show you that it is in fact ambiguous you won’t accept it and then start throwing insults around. Then get suspended. I simply point out that it might not be as simple as you think.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.

You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.

That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.

Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.

Do you realise that you just applied what I proposed for 40K in Star Trek? (Albeit in bizarrely literalistic and technical manner.) Why the in the name Ynnead's shiny arse would you just casually apply such multiple universe explanation to Star Trek, against the explicit intent of the producers, whilst simultaneously rejecting same approach with 40K, a property with far looser continuity? (Also, most people do not think it in so literal terms, the setting being either the same or not the same, most are fine with it being sameish, even though everything doesn't match 100%.)

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.

I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.

No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.

At the minute you are trying to set the standards, everyone else is wrong. And this idea that you have won any arguments is crazy. The standards we should adhere to as a community are surely the ones suggested by the producers of the material. And the points of these forums is to come and hear great ideas like nurglitches. Or the one about old ones or DAOT emperor. That’s fun to me and interesting because as the authors and producers say anything can happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.

You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'

I honestly don’t think you have understood a single thing I, and many others have tried to say to you on hear. U produce a quote and declare that it is fact. And no matter how many people show you that it is in fact ambiguous you won’t accept it and then start throwing insults around. Then get suspended. I simply point out that it might not be as simple as you think.

You make factual claims:

"If the above happens then both books would have correct lore" - this is your quote.

"They were all manipulated into turning. It’s what chaos does." this is your quote

This is one where you said they cannot be known then, you actually state their behaviour and what they are, I point out you are doing what you are inditing me of doing, then you pull the nuance thing:

"They don’t have personalities or emotions as we do but are discribed as such as it’s the only to comprehend what is going. It so anathema to mortals that it drives most of them insane on coantct. To try and measure a ‘gods’ knowledge is undoable. As was said before, they are." Your quote

"They really don’t care about infrastructure and supply routes. In the heresey, as they have since they just used the mortals to create chaos. There is no in or lose. Just chaos. Humans are important now but before that it was the eldar who were played with. The need the mortal universe to exist in a ting and yang way but they aren’t running spreadsheets on success or failure. They are deities with power, knowledge and abilities beyond our comprehension. If you haven’t, read the realms of chaos books from 1st edition era. They are a wealth of great info on chaos a huge source of inspiration." - your qoute

"Why does nurgle keep a tally? What does he do with it? Why does he make some of his mortal followers takes this endless meaningless tally? Their is no knowable point. All he wants is chaos.

Chaos couldn’t give a damn about supply routes and all the rest of it. Nothing like that matters in the warp, time and distance are irrelevant. U are picturing chaos as ordered and structured. It’s the opposite. It’s CHAOS!"

"Knowing “facts” without being able to read between the lines and see the bigger picture renders the facts as pointless. In the thread where you are arguing about the emperors deal it’s clear you have missed the subtlety of the story telling. " your quote

This is an example of you doing that. You do exactly what I do, you state concrete facts, however when you are inconsistent or wrong you say 'nuance', we ALL adhere to similar rules considering lore. I mean anyone that says its all up for interpretation, I can find them making concrete facts. Its fine to theorise, but only when you are talking about theories in the lore, you can't say this is fact and then when you are contradicted say its up for interpretation, there is a time an place for interpretation and theories.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm stating my arguement of how I think the community should act and in fact does act.

Andykp wrote:Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.

My apologies, you are right. Genuinely mean that, it's not some kind of passive-aggressive response!

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.

You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.

That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.

Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.

Do you realise that you just applied what I proposed for 40K in Star Trek? (Albeit in bizarrely literalistic and technical manner.) Why the in the name Ynnead's shiny arse would you just casually apply such multiple universe explanation to Star Trek, against the explicit intent of the producers, whilst simultaneously rejecting same approach with 40K, a property with far looser continuity? (Also, most people do not think it in so literal terms, the setting being either the same or not the same, most are fine with it being sameish, even though everything doesn't match 100%.)

With Star Trek being rebooted that many times, and you yourself saying you found their claim dubious, I don't think it's that similar to 40k.

Besides, you've not said "I believe 40k takes place over multiple universe with different truths" - you seem to maintain that 40k is one universe, with multiple contradictory truths present.

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.

There is literal truth in 40k. It just so happens to be fictional events, but the fact that they are true events in the reality of that fiction is unchanged.

Just because the universe of 40k isn't tangibly REAL, it doesn't mean that within the fictional world of it there are REAL events, like all fiction. Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor is real in LOTR. Kirk being the Captain of the Enterprise is real in Star Trek.

Just because there are in-universe conflicts doesn't mean that they're all true. It means that either a meta conflict has happened (such as just purely a writing error) or there is misinformation in-universe. Regardless, if the structure of 40k as a causal universe is to be maintained, only one outcome between two mutually exclusive ones can be canon within a single universe.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
With Star Trek being rebooted that many times, and you yourself saying you found their claim dubious, I don't think it's that similar to 40k.

Star Trek havs officially ever been rebooted once. Abrams's Star Trek Films take place in different universe (known as Kelvin Universe) while all other Star Trek takes place in the Prime Universe, and are supposed to be in the same continuity (even though numerous conflicts exist.)

Besides, you've not said "I believe 40k takes place over multiple universe with different truths" - you seem to maintain that 40k is one universe, with multiple contradictory truths present.

That's really just a different way to describe the same thing.

Just because the universe of 40k isn't tangibly REAL, it doesn't mean that within the fictional world of it there are REAL events, like all fiction. Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor is real in LOTR. Kirk being the Captain of the Enterprise is real in Star Trek.

Yes, and Kirk being the first to encounter the cloaking devices while there was a war where the cloaking devices were extensively used ten years earlier is also 'real.'

Just because there are in-universe conflicts doesn't mean that they're all true. It means that either a meta conflict has happened (such as just purely a writing error) or there is misinformation in-universe. Regardless, if the structure of 40k as a causal universe is to be maintained, only one outcome between two mutually exclusive ones can be canon within a single universe.

Me, or the creators of the setting are not interested in maintaining such one coherent causal universe. That is your headcanon, your obsession. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is multiple universes, or universe with literally unknown things or whatever, or indeed a fictional creation composed of contradicting stories.

Del, thank you for taking the time to quote me so much. I remember when you tried to convince me that the chaos gods cared about logistics. As I said in my summary before, yes we can all agree there are some points of absolute, the existence of marines etc. But what is not absolute is the word of the narrator in the HH books. Or any of the books. Or any of the characters opinions. Thank you for not resorting to insults and name calling this time.

Sgt smudge. Cheers. We can all enjoy the hobby our own way.

Oops. Just noticed there is a section for that.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing.

Speaking of the most absurd things I've ever heard...that final sentence shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how unreliable narrators work as a concept I'm not sure it's worth even attempting to explain it. Unreliable narrations can be third person and given multiple people involved with BL and GW have mentioned the fact that there is no official "one true canon" and several have referred to the stories as more like legends, it's not hard to imagine there is a degree of unreliability there. When someone recounts a myth or piece of folklore, it's often in third person form but we wouldn't say it's 100% authoritative.

Yup. If you want one of the OG examples of an unreliable narrator look no further than The Adventures of Tristram Shandy. The titular narrator isn't even born until about a 3rd of the way into the book and the book itself is far more omniscient as it mourns the death of another character (one page of the book is entirely black).

Take care.

And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.

With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end

.

Another way to look at the above quote is who ever the emperor was prior to getting on the throne, what he is now is something fundamentally different. Perhaps it is as Guilliman thinks, simply the Emperor dropping the curtain and no longer pretending that he cared about his kids.

Or alternatively, 10,000 years of being stuck on the throne, combined with having thousands of pyskers sacrificed into him for the last 10,000 years has effectively left us with an entity that in a meta physical sense is a different conscious. The thing that Bobby G had a talk with very well not be the same person that he knew during the heresy.

Onething123456 wrote:
And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.

With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end

.

People lie to them selves all the time, it’s very common.

Andykp wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:
And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.

With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end

.

People lie to them selves all the time, it’s very common.

Unless Gulliman knew he was in a book, then no.

I give up.

Andykp wrote:
I give up.

I am just curious as to why he would do such a thing.

As I have said before. Maybe he believed it happened but it didn’t. It was a dream or hallucination. Maybe he’s just being dramatic and nothing happened. Who knows?

Onething123456 wrote:
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.

So according to this little paragraph, the Emperor is sort off alive and the sort of guy who really dislike his creation because he is fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. Who knew that a guy who declare himself emperor and savior of all humanity would be that sort of person? On another note, does that mean the greatest secret of the Emperor is that he secretly always anted girls and no boys? Guilliman spent about 10K out of order after getting his throat slit and needed some arane and xenos tech to be revived, meanwhile Celestine bounces back from being disintegrated in a nuclear holocost, chopped into pieces, shot, etc. like if these were just scratches. Why the favoristism?

On another note, I question the conclusion that the Emperor is alive based on this blurb. In 40K there seems to be such a thing as life after death and a transcendental propriety to the soul. I think hte Emperor is dead, but his soul lives on. The Emperor doesn't live, he's a ghost and he will never live again. In fact, having lost "his humanity" he might as well lose what made him an individual and be transformed in nothing more than the collective desire of humanity to survive. In that everything is a tool, not just Guilliman or the other Primarch.

epronovost wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.

So according to this little paragraph, the Emperor is sort off alive and the sort of guy who really dislike his creation because he is fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. Who knew that a guy who declare himself emperor and savior of all humanity would be that sort of person? On another note, does that mean the greatest secret of the Emperor is that he secretly always anted girls and no boys? Guilliman spent about 10K out of order after getting his throat slit and needed some arane and xenos tech to be revived, meanwhile Celestine bounces back from being disintegrated in a nuclear holocost, chopped into pieces, shot, etc. like if these were just scratches. Why the favoristism?

On another note, I question the conclusion that the Emperor is alive based on this blurb. In 40K there seems to be such a thing as life after death and a transcendental propriety to the soul. I think hte Emperor is dead, but his soul lives on. The Emperor doesn't live, he's a ghost and he will never live again. In fact, having lost "his humanity" he might as well lose what made him an individual and be transformed in nothing more than the collective desire of humanity to survive. In that everything is a tool, not just Guilliman or the other Primarch.

Fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. You say that as if megalomaniacs do not believe in their (ignoring the fact the Emperor does not display characteristics of a "Megalomaniac narcissist", and is not one) causes. Hitler clearly believed in Aryan supremacy.



Why do you question it? Gulliman mulled (thought) about his meeting with the Emperor. Oh, I see.

 Crimson wrote:
[

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.

It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.

Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.

So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.

Voss wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
[

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.

It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.

Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.

So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.

To further complicate things, warp shenanigans makes reality hard to keep track of, which is why the Ordo Chronos was tasked with maintaining a coherent timeline... but they disappeared.
It's also funny that the dating system is potentially off by a full millennium.

Voss wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
[

Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.

Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.

It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.

Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.

So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.

I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.

meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS. There's some levels we need to consider for 40K canon. 1st off is "absolute canon" in 40k mankind worships the emperor of mankind, there are space marines called Ultramarines who wear blue, etc. this is absolute utter canon. there's no room for argument here. then you have what I'd call event canon, this is "this event happened, here's how it unfolded" one can, by virtue of it being rare for differant authors to write about the same event without cordinating a LITTLE generally be accepted as canon, sometimes you might however have cases where the event is never referanced again, or referances to it make you suddenly question if it's basicly being swept under a rug. and then you have "detail canon" that, TBH rarely is all that canon, stuff like how space marine autosenses work, the calibur of bolt shells etc. that pretty much seem to bounce around from writer to writer.

BrianDavion wrote:


I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.

meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS.

It all makes way more sense if you assume that the BL books are historical novels even in the setting. So they have same relationship to truth than a novel based on actual historical events in our world would. I think this is what the creators basically imply when they say it is 'rumour and legends'.

Again crimson talks perfect sense.

Andykp wrote:
Again crimson talks perfect sense.

Not really, no one would EVER finish a 40k novel in the 40k setting before they got burnt at the stake for heresy


now the codices? I can READILY belive that. hell if I was in charge of GW I'd order an entirely new approuch to codices when the next edition change over came out and have them specificly be written ICly,

BrianDavion wrote:I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.

History has holes, but so does our understanding of 40k.
And yes, people often do narrate of themselves in a false way to make themselves justified. People do that in 40k too - the difference is that we can't see in people's heads IRL, but we can see in 40k definite truths in a character's head.

However, my point about history=fiction is that in history, an event DID occur. How it happened, why, and all of those vagarities can be up for debate, but fundamentally, there was ONE true outcome. 40k, if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz, also may have those vagarities of detail, and the exact retellings might be varied, but fundamentally, if something took place, there is only ONE true way it went down.

Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.

meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS. There's some levels we need to consider for 40K canon. 1st off is "absolute canon" in 40k mankind worships the emperor of mankind, there are space marines called Ultramarines who wear blue, etc. this is absolute utter canon. there's no room for argument here. then you have what I'd call event canon, this is "this event happened, here's how it unfolded" one can, by virtue of it being rare for differant authors to write about the same event without cordinating a LITTLE generally be accepted as canon, sometimes you might however have cases where the event is never referanced again, or referances to it make you suddenly question if it's basicly being swept under a rug. and then you have "detail canon" that, TBH rarely is all that canon, stuff like how space marine autosenses work, the calibur of bolt shells etc. that pretty much seem to bounce around from writer to writer.

Since we're dealing with "event canon", as you call it, while an event may be reported with conflicting accounts in- and out-of-universe, it doesn't change the fact that in the fictional world of the universe, there was a definite TRUE event. Whether that TRUE event is supported by in-universe accounts, or even if it's told at all, the TRUE event must have happened a certain way.

I fully agree that in-universe sources are canon - in that the sources themselves are canon. Say we have two reports of Event 1, Report A and Report B. Both A and B exist within universe, and are canon. However, it does not mean that A or B is necessarily equal or truthful as 1. 1 has a canon outcome, and that canon outcome does not have to be A or B, but it cannot be both A and B.

In- or out-of-universe sources might be canon, but they might not be TRUE.

Crimson wrote:It all makes way more sense if you assume that the BL books are historical novels even in the setting. So they have same relationship to truth than a novel based on actual historical events in our world would. I think this is what the creators basically imply when they say it is 'rumour and legends'.

It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.

Any discrepancies within the books or series, if not an in-universe fabrication/mistake/rumour, is a simple writing error by the BL team.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz,

We are not.

Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.

Or that there are several conflicting stories, each of which is true in context of that story, but not in the context of another story.

It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.

Yeah, no. This is absolutely the most infuriating thing about the BL fans. They insist that the BL version of the setting is somehow more true and only 'real' version. Utter bollocks. "The sky of Mars is orange" and "Guilliman observed with his magnificent manly eyes the greenness of the martian sky while thinking about the terrible burden of being the most awesome person in existence" are both sentences that tell us about the colour of the sky of Mars, and the latter being in a form of bad prose doesn't mean it any more authoritative.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz,

I am not.

Fixed for you.
Black Library treats it as one.

Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.

Or that there are several conflicting stories, each of which is true in context of that story, but not in the context of another story.

But 40k IS one story. Within the story, there are conflicting accounts, but 40k itself has one story.

This isn't a "MCU event =/= Comics Universe event but are both canon" situation. For that, it works because there are two separate universes. 40k doesn't have that.

At least, Black Library support that.

It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.

Yeah, no. This is absolutely the most infuriating thing about the BL fans. They insist that the BL version of the setting is somehow more true and only 'real' version. Utter bollocks. "The sky of Mars is orange" and "Guilliman observed with his magnificent manly eyes the greenness of the martian sky while thinking about the terrible burden of being the most awesome person in existence" are both sentences that tell us about the colour of the sky of Mars, and the latter being in a form of bad prose doesn't mean it any more authoritative.

Why isn't the BL version the canon one? As it is written, the linguistic way the books WORK is not as a retelling. The "reports" and other such in-universe sources do make sense they could be fictional. The BL books do not, due to their narrative style.

You wouldn't turn around and say that "I don't like MCU fans because they insist the film versions of the MCU are more true and real". Sorry, but that's the literal creators' official publications. Can there be mistakes, and retcons, and simple author lapses? Yes. You just have to change the canon to amend for those IRL mistakes.

What is wrong with having a True Event? You can do your headcanon. You can still go about your life unaffected.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Black Library treats it as one.

Not really. Where are the multilaser terminators in the later books? They kinda try to keep the HH thing consistent (it isn't though) as it is one continuing stry, but outside that writers can do pretty much what they want. Abnett is notorious for this.

But 40k IS one story. Within the story, there are conflicting accounts, but 40k itself has one story.

Nope. Sure, there exists the roughly unchanging narrative core, but such exists in all the different version of Batman too.

This isn't a "MCU event =/= Comics Universe event but are both canon" situation. For that, it works because there are two separate universes. 40k doesn't have that.

It does, it just isn't so clearly labelled. Though BL is a different brand, so there is already an intentional separation there. And of course there was the Fantasy Flight version of the setting, which was clearly different. And as noted earlier, differnt BL authors have their own versions of the setting whaich are not necessarily compatible with each other, or the studio fluff. It is unlabelled very loose continuity Bond. And no, it is not several different agents named James Bond, nor are there several different Felix Leiters, it is just very loose or nonexistent continuity.(Sure, the cover identity is an interpretation you can apply (though not a good one), but that is basically your headcanon; it was not intended to work that way.)

Why isn't the BL version the canon one?

It is canon. And so is the studio version. Even if they conflict.

As it is written, the linguistic way the books WORK is not as a retelling. The "reports" and other such in-universe sources do make sense they could be fictional. The BL books do not, due to their narrative style.

Utter bollocks. The narrative style doesn't make it any less or more true, this is patently ludicrous claim. If anything, a claim could be made that statements made in a neutral textbook manner would be more authoritative, as they're free of artistic interpretations that the prose inherently requires.

You wouldn't turn around and say that "I don't like MCU fans because they insist the film versions of the MCU are more true and real".

Because those people do not think MCU is the real version of the Marvel setting and supersedes the comics because we can see real people in it whilst the comics are just drawings. I mean, that would be an absurd way to think.

Sorry, but that's the literal creators' official publications. Can there be mistakes, and retcons, and simple author lapses? Yes. You just have to change the canon to amend for those IRL mistakes.

A different version of a story is not a mistake.

What is wrong with having a True Event? You can do your headcanon. You can still go about your life unaffected.

Whats so wrong in accepting that there is no one unified continuity? You can still impose your headcanon on it like you do with Bond. Trying to insist on one true interpretation is futile, even the writers themselves do not have that.