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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Are you sure the Wanderer hasn't continued to survive in the desert because of his environmental suit and local knowledge of the terrain?

SJ

There is no suit that can withstand 600 degrees celsius. That is hotter than Venus, the hottest planet in our solar system, that is hot enough to melt Lead. And what terrain? It is all quicksand. All of it.

The waste-recycling still suit, of course. You know, the one designed to collect human waste and waste water, respiration, and recycle it to keep the wearer alive? And the terrain is the subterranean tubes running under the surface from oasis to oasis.

SJ

And how does said still suit survive 600 degrees celsius?

 Wulfmar wrote:
I believe this will be my last post now.


I believe I understand Jeffersons view on this character (correct me if I'm wrong). It boils down to: There has been no literal writing that states such a character cannot exist since it's first publication. Because he was created but then not been stated as non-existent in actual writing, then he persists as a character that just wasn't developed further. I can see this point but I disagree with it for the following reason:

Each time the codex is re-written, I see it as re-write, a re-freshing of the history. It's not cumulative with previous codex fluff, it's a re-write that obliterates the previous one (in effect). Therefore, if this character is not included, he then does not exist. The timeline has not progressed at all when you look at the codex.


It basically just boils down to a point of pedency

A valid point. Unfortunately, Games Workshop, Forge World, and the Black Library do not share this view. As has been stated before, GW does not recognize "canon" within their body of work, and have specifically stated that all of the 40k background should be seen as lies, propaganda, and Mythology. As such, any bit of fluff that is not directly contradicted by a newer entry is equally as valid as any other entry, while conflicting entries are technically both correct, although the more detailed version is probably the more interesting one (but not necessarily more valid).

This is why using one bit of GW fluff to "negate" another bit of GW fluff does not work, while referencing a more detailed version of the same lore has more weight than the less detailed version.

In the example of Illiyan Nastase, the character has a background that does not conflict with current publications, even though it does seem odd and out of place. Yet, when we look at Roboute Gilliman, we see a drastic difference between his older fluff and the many novels than have recently been published. Do these conflicting bits of lore invalidate one or the other? Per GW, no, they do not. The fact that contradictory fluff exists creates even more detail of the setting, forcing us the readers to question what we are being told. Some many see that as bad writing. Others, like myself, see that as part of what makes the setting epic.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Are you sure the Wanderer hasn't continued to survive in the desert because of his environmental suit and local knowledge of the terrain?

SJ

There is no suit that can withstand 600 degrees celsius. That is hotter than Venus, the hottest planet in our solar system, that is hot enough to melt Lead. And what terrain? It is all quicksand. All of it.

The waste-recycling still suit, of course. You know, the one designed to collect human waste and waste water, respiration, and recycle it to keep the wearer alive? And the terrain is the subterranean tubes running under the surface from oasis to oasis.

SJ

And how does said still suit survive 600 degrees celsius?

It doesn't. He's under the surface, avoiding the unsurvivable heat and pressure by traveling along lava tubes from oasis to oasis. Did you not read the story?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

It doesn't. He's under the surface, avoiding the unsurvivable heat and pressure by traveling along lava tubes from oasis to oasis. Did you not read the story?

SJ

Ah, so you changed the story, putting in information that was not present (the suit which is apparently 100% efficient (impossible), the lava tubes, the underground rivers etc.), in order to force the new fluff to still include the old.

So he couldn't survive the story as told so you had to change it.

Thanks for the concession, as you say.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

It doesn't. He's under the surface, avoiding the unsurvivable heat and pressure by traveling along lava tubes from oasis to oasis. Did you not read the story?

SJ

Ah, so you changed the story, putting in information that was not present (the suit which is apparently 100% efficient (impossible), the lava tubes, the underground rivers etc.), in order to force the new fluff to still include the old.

So he couldn't survive the story as told so you had to change it.

Thanks for the concession, as you say.

I didn't change the story, you did.

SJ

 Ashiraya wrote:
Consider the following analogy.

In the first edition of a setting, a writer talks about a wanderer who lives in a desert, a human who walks the wastes and survives by moving from oasis to oasis.

Many years later the setting has exploded in size and the author's retcons and new decisions have changed a lot of the old facts. In one of his new stories, he details the previously mentioned desert, and explains that the desert is extremely hot (over 600 degrees celsius). He also explains that the desert is effectively entirely consisting of quicksand, and any attempts to enter it would be disastrous.

The existence of the first wanderer has not been explicitly retconned, however, the only logical conclusion to draw is to consider him as such. The author did not say 'the wanderer no longer exists', but he did provide other data whose existence is not compatible with a previous iteration of the story.

In a similar vein, the existence of the Half-Eldar has not been explicitly retconned. However, the changes in the setting (such as details on Eldar genetics and Imperial xenophobia, the absence of his position in the complete lists of Ultramarine membership ranks, and so on) are incompatible with his existence. As said changes are more numerous, more recent and more consistent, it is only rational to assume that they take precedence in this canon conflict.

Not so difficult, now was it?

When canon conflicts, the oldest, least consistent with the rest of the setting, and least common part really should not be used outside of headcanon.

So actually yes, you did change it. You added stuff that had not previously been mentioned. That is changing the story.

No, he changed the story in his example in an attempt to demonstrate how a character can exist at first, and then be overlooked when the setting of the story changes to make the character's background conflicting with the present narrative. I pointed out via narrative how he character's background does not conflict with the new narrative.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
No, he changed the story in his example in an attempt to demonstrate how a character can exist at first, and then be overlooked when the setting of the story changes to make the character's background conflicting with the present narrative. I pointed out via narrative how he character's background does not conflict with the new narrative.

SJ

Except it does as the only way to make it fit is to alter the newer fluff to introduce these never before mentioned tunnels and a never before mentioned 100% efficient suit which conserves and purifies all of his waste products.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
No, he changed the story in his example in an attempt to demonstrate how a character can exist at first, and then be overlooked when the setting of the story changes to make the character's background conflicting with the present narrative. I pointed out via narrative how he character's background does not conflict with the new narrative.

SJ

Except it does as the only way to make it fit is to alter the newer fluff to introduce these never before mentioned tunnels and a never before mentioned 100% efficient suit which conserves and purifies all of his waste products.

Nothing was mentioned in your narrative, which can mean that there is nothing to mention, or that there is more to mention. Assuming there is nothing is poor storytelling. I'm guessing you don't do narrative writing?

SJ

So you added stuff to make it fit what you wanted?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
No, he changed the story in his example in an attempt to demonstrate how a character can exist at first, and then be overlooked when the setting of the story changes to make the character's background conflicting with the present narrative. I pointed out via narrative how he character's background does not conflict with the new narrative.

SJ

Except it does as the only way to make it fit is to alter the newer fluff to introduce these never before mentioned tunnels and a never before mentioned 100% efficient suit which conserves and purifies all of his waste products.

Nothing was mentioned in your narrative, which can mean that there is nothing to mention, or that there is more to mention. Assuming there is nothing is poor storytelling. I'm guessing you don't do narrative writing?

SJ

I'm saying that if the Ring of Power was described as a plain gold band you can't just then add in a load of gems to make it fit some previous story written where it had included a Silmaril.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
No, he changed the story in his example in an attempt to demonstrate how a character can exist at first, and then be overlooked when the setting of the story changes to make the character's background conflicting with the present narrative. I pointed out via narrative how he character's background does not conflict with the new narrative.

SJ

Except it does as the only way to make it fit is to alter the newer fluff to introduce these never before mentioned tunnels and a never before mentioned 100% efficient suit which conserves and purifies all of his waste products.

Nothing was mentioned in your narrative, which can mean that there is nothing to mention, or that there is more to mention. Assuming there is nothing is poor storytelling. I'm guessing you don't do narrative writing?

SJ

I'm saying that if the Ring of Power was described as a plain gold band you can't just then add in a load of gems to make it fit some previous story written where it had included a Silmaril.

Yet heating the plan gold band in a fire won't reveal the inscription on the inner surface? Looking at the plan gold band through a prism won't reveal the mind gems studding its circumference? Removing the gem setting won't reveal that the plan gold band underneath was the Ring of Power the whole time?

You need to read more.

 statu wrote:
So you added stuff to make it fit what you wanted?

No, I just speculated via speculative fiction.

SJ

Though you've speculated on very little there. What's the setting? The genre?

 statu wrote:
Though you've speculated on very little there. What's the setting? The genre?

Indeed, what are the setting and genre? Science Fiction/Fantasy, judging by the use of 600 degrees Celsius.

SJ

The point I was, rather poorly, trying to make, was that your suit etcetera may not actually be possible within this story. It could be set in on earth in 2015 where by a bomb or something has created the 600oC desert. Therefore any speculation cannot be presented as this is what happened, as it is impossible to know what happened, or how it happened, or why it happened. The only person to know 100% what happened is the guy that writes it. Therefore any guess at what has happened, because for all you know within this story your additions are impossible, must be presented as this may be what happened etc, which you didn't do. You presented an idea you had as the only way it was possible, adding in stuff that you felt needed to be added in

 statu wrote:
The point I was, rather poorly, trying to make, was that your suit etcetera may not actually be possible within this story. It could be set in on earth in 2015 where by a bomb or something has created the 600oC desert. Therefore any speculation cannot be presented as this is what happened, as it is impossible to know what happened, or how it happened, or why it happened. The only person to know 100% what happened is the guy that writes it. Therefore any guess at what has happened, because for all you know within this story your additions are impossible, must be presented as this may be what happened etc, which you didn't do. You presented an idea you had as the only way it was possible, adding in stuff that you felt needed to be added in

You just invalidated your own argument ... and probably still don't understand why.

SJ

How do you think I managed to invalidate my argument then?

 statu wrote:
How do you think I managed to invalidate my argument then?

Let me mark it for you:

 statu wrote:
The point I was, rather poorly, trying to make, was that your suit etcetera may not actually be possible within this story. It could be set in on earth in 2015 where by a bomb or something has created the 600oC desert. Therefore any speculation cannot be presented as this is what happened, as it is impossible to know what happened, or how it happened, or why it happened. The only person to know 100% what happened is the guy that writes it. Therefore any guess at what has happened, because for all you know within this story your additions are impossible, must be presented as this may be what happened etc, which you didn't do. You presented an idea you had as the only way it was possible, adding in stuff that you felt needed to be added in

GW not only has not retconned nor removed Nastase, both GW and the Black Library have stated that there is no canon, that all of their writing is equally valid. Your argument has been that more recent changes invalidate older fluff. In your example, you the author wrote a story, then rewrote the story with more detail that might conflict with the original story, yet when a fan attempts to explain parts of the setting not covered, you the author tell the fan that their addition doesn't fit the narrative. If we replace "you the author" with GW, and "the fan" with you, we have the dialog on this thread about GW's Nastase background versus GW's Xenology, you stating the Xenology invalidates Nastase, and GW stating all of their writing is valid.

That's okay, I'll wait while your head explodes.

SJ

That's ok, I'll wait till you realise that I wasn't actually talking about the whole nastase thing there

I stopped caring about that when you repeatedly refused to admit that nastase may just be an in universe story

 statu wrote:
That's ok, I'll wait till you realise that I wasn't actually talking about the whole nastase thing there

I stopped caring about that when you repeatedly refused to admit that nastase may just be an in universe story

And there we are, back around again.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 statu wrote:
That's ok, I'll wait till you realise that I wasn't actually talking about the whole nastase thing there

I stopped caring about that when you repeatedly refused to admit that nastase may just be an in universe story

And there we are, back around again.

SJ

You brought it back round to it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

GW not only has not retconned nor removed Nastase, both GW and the Black Library have stated that there is no canon, that all of their writing is equally valid. Your argument has been that more recent changes invalidate older fluff. In your example, you the author wrote a story, then rewrote the story with more detail that might conflict with the original story, yet when a fan attempts to explain parts of the setting not covered, you the author tell the fan that their addition doesn't fit the narrative. If we replace "you the author" with GW, and "the fan" with you, we have the dialog on this thread about GW's Nastase background versus GW's Xenology, you stating the Xenology invalidates Nastase, and GW stating all of their writing is valid.

That's okay, I'll wait while your head explodes.

SJ

If there is no canon then Nastase is not canon. Therefore he is just a myth in the setting, considering eldar-human hybrids have never ever been mentioned ever again and Tigurius was the Chief Librarian when Nastase was claimed to have that position (Notice Chief Librarian Astropath):

The inability to understand what's written is astounding with you guys. 9 pages of you not reading, me pointing out what you would see if you actually bothered to read, followed by more of your not reading. I would give up at this point, but I'm too stubborn to let the ignorant succeed via annoyance.

SJ

I wonder what 1D4Chan has to say on the matter

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Illiyan_Nastase

Why is it, desire black library fella saying everything could be lies, propaganda or a legend, you are incapable of admitting that nastase might fit one of these categories, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter? It astounds me you seem to be completely incapable of admitting that maybe he might not have actually existed in the universe and was just a story, again in universe

 statu wrote:
Why is it, desire black library fella saying everything could be lies, propaganda or a legend, you are incapable of admitting that nastase might fit one of these categories, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter? It astounds me you seem to be completely incapable of admitting that maybe he might not have actually existed in the universe and was just a story, again in universe

See? There you go not actually reading. I did state that it is all fiction. Guess you won't read this post, either.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I wonder what 1D4Chan has to say on the matter

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Illiyan_Nastase

I guess we can assume you still haven't read the 1d4chan article, despite linking it twice?

SJ

Answering every argument with 'you're not reading it' is not refuting anything. Js

Why assume eldar have DNA that works structurally like earth based DNA? For all anyone knows eldar have a completely different method of encoding genetic information. That answer works as well as any other.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 statu wrote:
Why is it, desire black library fella saying everything could be lies, propaganda or a legend, you are incapable of admitting that nastase might fit one of these categories, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter? It astounds me you seem to be completely incapable of admitting that maybe he might not have actually existed in the universe and was just a story, again in universe

See? There you go not actually reading. I did state that it is all fiction. Guess you won't read this post, either.

SJ

Admittedly yes you did, but only when you were using it to try and belittle me, by making out that I thought this was all real

Rumbleguts wrote:
Why assume eldar have DNA that works structurally like earth based DNA? For all anyone knows eldar have a completely different method of encoding genetic information. That answer works as well as any other.

They do, according to Xenology. Quintuple helix with 20 bases.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I wonder what 1D4Chan has to say on the matter

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Illiyan_Nastase

I guess we can assume you still haven't read the 1d4chan article, despite linking it twice?

SJ

1) I wasn't aware I had linked it twice personally. I can't find the previous link either that I am supposed to have posted.

2) Your attitude sucks. I posted the link for fun as it's satire and you treat me like crud. Drop the attitude