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.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You've cherry picked one sentence out of a two sentence paragraph the other half of which is: I ignore bad studio material too.

Of course I'm cherry-picking. He's dancing around the issue, but in that one sentence he drops that veil and clearly states what other books mean to him and what BL authors are allowed to "get away with".
I also did not "conveniently overlook" anything in the comments - in fact, I have cited that very example you just mentioned as proof for why BL novels are so unreliable: their authors disregard even studio material based on their own personal interpretation and/or preferences. Maybe it was a lapse in editing (see George Mann's comment about the Multilaser Marines), but I think BL authors just have a lot of leeway. Either way, it further serves to negate the status of licensed material as reliable sources for information consistent with the rest of the setting (i.e. "canon").

For the record, I actually agree with ADB about the Night Lords armour in that the change was stupid. Yet, there were lots of other retcons done by GW that I'd consider stupid as well (the latest GK Codex springs to mind), but they were done nonetheless, and at the end of the day, it is GW's setting, so we - and this includes ADB - have to "suck it up" and "deal with it".

The moment you write a novel deviating from studio material because you think it's crap, that moment your novel no longer takes place in "the setting as promulgated by the codexes and army books" (direct quote from Gav Thorpe) but in your own little world that exists in your head alone. Which is probably why there's so little consistency between licensed material: Everyone does his own stuff and nobody cares for what his neighbour writes.

Again I ask: How can you consider something like that "canon"? Other authors obviously don't, so why should your perception as a reader be different? This is a question I have yet to see answered. How do you deal with the above conflict?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Like Star Wars the Star Trek system of canon is given as an example of what 40K is not.
Star Wars: Tiered canon
Star Trek: All OR nothing
Warhammer 40K: All AND nothing.

The latter is an oxymoron. It can only be either or. If nothing is canon, then nothing is canon. When people are free to decide for themselves what the setting should look like, then this just means that the concept of canonicity in 40k does not exist, because there is no basis for people to communicate on as there is no "common ground" and no rules that anyone could agree on. It's that simple.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:When, ADB and Andy Hoare talk about some of the inconsistancies in the background you seem to think it about just BL. He's talking about the whole thing.

I would say that GW as the creators and managers of the franchise have the right to do retcons - freelance authors writing licensed material do not, as obviously GW does not care what they write (so any "personal retcons" like the Night Lords armour description from ADB reverting to its older state will simply remain deviations from the current studio material).
Maybe it's just because the amount of information is so much smaller, but if you discount licensed information, the setting of 40k is pretty consistent for a franchise that has been around for 20 years. That is why I currently believe that it is this what should be the common ground, with anything from the licensed material being nothing more than personal interpretation (from that one author) that everyone should feel free to add to his own perception of the setting (where it does not conflict with the above common ground) without claiming it to be a fact or the only truth. Which is how this stuff currently gets treated by a large part of the community, creating contradictions and confusion.

Lynata wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You've cherry picked one sentence out of a two sentence paragraph the other half of which is: I ignore bad studio material too.

Of course I'm cherry-picking. He's dancing around the issue, but in that one sentence he drops that veil and clearly states what other books mean to him and what BL authors are allowed to "get away with".
I also did not "conveniently overlook" anything in the comments - in fact, I have cited that very example you just mentioned as proof for why BL novels are so unreliable: their authors disregard even studio material based on their own personal interpretation and/or preferences. Maybe it was a lapse in editing (see George Mann's comment about the Multilaser Marines), but I think BL authors just have a lot of leeway. Either way, it further serves to negate the status of licensed material as reliable sources for information consistent with the rest of the setting (i.e. "canon").

For the record, I actually agree with ADB about the Night Lords armour in that the change was stupid. Yet, there were lots of other retcons done by GW that I'd consider stupid as well (the latest GK Codex springs to mind), but they were done nonetheless, and at the end of the day, it is GW's setting, so we - and this includes ADB - have to "suck it up" and "deal with it".

The moment you write a novel deviating from studio material because you think it's crap, that moment your novel no longer takes place in "the setting as promulgated by the codexes and army books" (direct quote from Gav Thorpe) but in your own little world that exists in your head alone. Which is probably why there's so little consistency between licensed material: Everyone does his own stuff and nobody cares for what his neighbour writes.

Again I ask: How can you consider something like that "canon"? Other authors obviously don't, so why should your perception as a reader be different? This is a question I have yet to see answered. How do you deal with the above conflict?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Like Star Wars the Star Trek system of canon is given as an example of what 40K is not.
Star Wars: Tiered canon
Star Trek: All OR nothing
Warhammer 40K: All AND nothing.

The latter is an oxymoron. It can only be either or. If nothing is canon, then nothing is canon. When people are free to decide for themselves what the setting should look like, then this just means that the concept of canonicity in 40k does not exist, because there is no basis for people to communicate on as there is no "common ground" and no rules that anyone could agree on. It's that simple.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:When, ADB and Andy Hoare talk about some of the inconsistancies in the background you seem to think it about just BL. He's talking about the whole thing.

I would say that GW as the creators and managers of the franchise have the right to do retcons - freelance authors writing licensed material do not, as obviously GW does not care what they write (so any "personal retcons" like the Night Lords armour description from ADB reverting to its older state will simply remain deviations from the current studio material).
Maybe it's just because the amount of information is so much smaller, but if you discount licensed information, the setting of 40k is pretty consistent for a franchise that has been around for 20 years. That is why I currently believe that it is this what should be the common ground, with anything from the licensed material being nothing more than personal interpretation (from that one author) that everyone should feel free to add to his own perception of the setting (where it does not conflict with the above common ground) without claiming it to be a fact or the only truth. Which is how this stuff currently gets treated by a large part of the community, creating contradictions and confusion.

I was afraid this might happen but you're melding two issues into one now:
1) What ADB's view on canon is and
2) What your view on canon is.

Your points about BL are not crazy or anything and I'd like to have a whole seperate debate on that, but that is all #2. When it comes to #1 here, ADB's viewpoint, we cannot ignore:

"In short, the belief is usually that the design studio has precedence, and everything else isn’t canon. That’s actually wrong, but several aspects reinforce the misjudgement, not least that a few top brass quotes have been poorly phrased or taken out of context"
"the official line is that there are three factions empowered to “create IP” (an exact quote), and that’s GW, BL and FW. Given that the 40K RPG is mostly made by folks working in or around the main three companies, I think it’s fair to say that its lore counts as canon, too."

It's ok if you don't agree with ADB. You mentioned how you've adopted his beliefs as your own. IMHO you do not actually agree on this matter. I mean do you honestly still think you and ADB have the same view on canon?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:When it comes to #1 here, ADB's viewpoint, we cannot ignore:
"In short, the belief is usually that the design studio has precedence, and everything else isn’t canon. That’s actually wrong, but several aspects reinforce the misjudgement, not least that a few top brass quotes have been poorly phrased or taken out of context"
"the official line is that there are three factions empowered to “create IP” (an exact quote), and that’s GW, BL and FW. Given that the 40K RPG is mostly made by folks working in or around the main three companies, I think it’s fair to say that its lore counts as canon, too."

I do not want to ignore anything, I'm just saying he is beating around the bush with sentences like that. He says "that [the belief] is actually wrong", but does not actually tell us what the right answer is. We are forced to analyze the rest of the post to get to this point.
First off, that exact quote about "creating IP" does not have to do anything with canon. "Creating IP" means slapping a label onto something and sueing people if they copy it without you allowing it - not more. The Star Trek novels also "create IP", but do not mean anything for the canon of this franchise.
And secondly, for something to be "canon" it has to establish a fact. What worth has a novel for a debate about background if we know beforehand that the very next author is officially free to contradict it? Or if this has indeed already happened?

You still haven't answered my question about that conflict within that blog post - he IS contradicting himself there - or how the oxymoron of "all and nothing is canon" is supposed to work out. This is a pretty major aspect of the entire debate.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I mean do you honestly still think you and ADB have the same view on canon?

Yes and no. He doesn't feel a need to adhere to what some other authors have written in their respective novels because he thinks that would include some pretty silly stuff. Here I absolutely agree. He also doesn't feel a need to adhere to studio canon, which is where I, personally, would disagree. Less because of a question of "being allowed" to deviate from it (obviously he is, as is C.S. Goto), but more because of every little change you make brings your book further away from the setting as currently described in GW's own books, bit by small bit. How would you feel about a novel that would still play in a setting as described in the Rogue Trader rulebook? GW makes changes to their universe. You can only try to keep up - or get left behind. It's their franchise, not that of the novel author (for better or for worse; I've read enough GW and BL material to know that both is possible).

It doesn't change anything about the value of these books in a "having a good read" kind of way, but I am vehemently denouncing their status as "official law" for the background, which is the way how they commonly get thrown around - despite often contradicting themselves or even studio material (small wonder, given the level of artistic license). In the end, all I am advocating is consistency. A common ground. Because without that, without any hard facts, we really cannot discuss the background. To a degree, even ADB agrees here, when he mentions that "it matters to respect the source material".

Geez, I'd actually pay to read his thoughts on a thread like this now.

If it isn't in a Codex, WD, IA or a Rule Book its nonsense and should be treated as such.

At least this is how GW allows it to be... Personally, I like to think the endless sources of solid fluff are canon, but until GW stops being lazy and makes a "Lore Bible" for reference a lot of fans will be continue to get the "Lucas" treatment on 40Ks story.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the BL guys as "second-tier" or whatever canon; the Horus Heresy series, for example, is entirely planned out, and the writers sit down with the GW guy in charge of the entire IP all the time to craft the story.

The shift in Heresy-era Legion sizes is occurring in the Horus Heresy series, and hasn't been mentioned in a codex yet, but it's a directive that came from Games Workshop, not the mind of some random BL author. Will it be showing up in future codices? I suspect so. Should it be considered as canon as anything else? That's entirely up to personal preference. And that's what ADB seems to be saying; GW's never going to come out and clarify what's first-tier canon, what's second-tier canon, what's utter nonsense, etc. Everything's just as valid as everything else, even when it conflicts.

Lynata wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I mean do you honestly still think you and ADB have the same view on canon?

Yes and no.

Ah, the old All-And-Nothing approach. I've heard of it.

Seaward wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the BL guys as "second-tier" or whatever canon; the Horus Heresy series, for example, is entirely planned out, and the writers sit down with the GW guy in charge of the entire IP all the time to craft the story.

I actually see this as a possibility - though the Horus Heresy has been around for some time, and I have yet to see stuff of it (such as the "Sisters of Silence") show up in new studio material. In the end, this will be up to GW, as Gav mentions in his own blog: http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/

"The same applies to transference from Black Library back into the gaming supplements. If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."

Note the difference that Gav - former lead background designer at GW - makes here between individual BL ideas and the singular "game world" described in studio material? A pretty important detail.

Seaward wrote:And that's what ADB seems to be saying; GW's never going to come out and clarify what's first-tier canon, what's second-tier canon, what's utter nonsense, etc. Everything's just as valid as everything else, even when it conflicts.

Hm, I actually think like you when it comes to GW officially clarifying this - they have no need to do so, and them publicly "denouncing" BL as non-canon may be feared as threatening sales. The current situation, whilst bad for us, is safe for them, thus preferred by the company.
Still, oxymorons cannot work. If he wanted to say (confirm) that GW will simply not touch that subject, why not do exactly that instead of going for misleading lines?
The "big picture" may also change somewhat when you compare his statement with the one from Gav above.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Ah, the old All-And-Nothing approach. I've heard of it.

No full quote this time?
As I explained above, I agree with him on one thing, I disagree with him on another. As I do not agree with "everything and nothing" he said, my opinion is not in conflict with itself - unlike that which you attempted to compare it to. So please no puting words in mouths. :/

I thought you might have been interested in a detailed explanation - but if you prefer a simple "yes or no" then I'd have to go with the latter, as his opinion has a single aspect I cannot agree with: Codex fluff should be sacrosanct, even where it's stupid. Else you're just setting your train up to run on some parallel track instead of the one built by GW, without knowing how long it'll run into the same direction and whether you can still arrive at the same station or not. Now there's an allegory.

And you still haven't answered that question.

Lynata wrote:

Seaward wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the BL guys as "second-tier" or whatever canon; the Horus Heresy series, for example, is entirely planned out, and the writers sit down with the GW guy in charge of the entire IP all the time to craft the story.

I actually see this as a possibility - though the Horus Heresy has been around for some time, and I have yet to see stuff of it (such as the "Sisters of Silence") show up in new studio material. In the end, this will be up to GW, as Gav mentions in his own blog: http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jumping-the-fence/

"The same applies to transference from Black Library back into the gaming supplements. If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."

Note the difference that Gav - former lead background designer at GW - makes here between individual BL ideas and the singular "game world" described in studio material? A pretty important detail.

Seaward wrote:And that's what ADB seems to be saying; GW's never going to come out and clarify what's first-tier canon, what's second-tier canon, what's utter nonsense, etc. Everything's just as valid as everything else, even when it conflicts.

Hm, I actually think like you when it comes to GW officially clarifying this - they have no need to do so, and them publicly "denouncing" BL as non-canon may be feared as threatening sales. The current situation, whilst bad for us, is safe for them, thus preferred by the company.
Still, oxymorons cannot work. If he wanted to say (confirm) that GW will simply not touch that subject, why not do exactly that instead of going for misleading lines?
The "big picture" may also change somewhat when you compare his statement with the one from Gav above.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Ah, the old All-And-Nothing approach. I've heard of it.

No full quote this time?
As I explained above, I agree with him on one thing, I disagree with him on another. As I do not agree with "everything and nothing" he said, my opinion is not in conflict with itself - unlike that which you attempted to compare it to. So please no puting words in mouths. :/

I thought you might have been interested in a detailed explanation - but if you prefer a simple "yes or no" then I'd have to go with the latter, as his opinion has a single aspect I cannot agree with: Codex fluff should be sacrosanct, even where it's stupid. Else you're just setting your train up to run on some parallel track instead of the one built by GW, without knowing how long it'll run into the same direction and whether you can still arrive at the same station or not. Now there's an allegory.

And you still haven't answered that question.

Thanks for that more definitive answer. Your long, detailed answers can be hard to respond to but on the other hand I feel like I have been able to follow the progression of your view. Trust me, I have a lot of respect for you admitting that there was more to it than you first saw, than what usually happens, where people just dig their heels in and end up calling each other stupid.

Lynata wrote:Hm, I actually think like you when it comes to GW officially clarifying this - they have no need to do so, and them publicly "denouncing" BL as non-canon may be feared as threatening sales. The current situation, whilst bad for us, is safe for them, thus preferred by the company.
Still, oxymorons cannot work. If he wanted to say (confirm) that GW will simply not touch that subject, why not do exactly that instead of going for misleading lines?
The "big picture" may also change somewhat when you compare his statement with the one from Gav above.

I don't feel like the big picture changes at all. Look at it this way; how often has GW "core" canon changed? Space Marines didn't start out as monastic, gene-bred knights, for example. Their entire backstory has changed completely from its first iteration, and they're far from the only example. GW doesn't clarify what has canon supremacy in the case of conflicts because, I think, they simply don't care that much. They manage their IP, but they take a pretty half-assed approach to a lot of aspects of it. The canon status of anything is, inevitably, fluid, which is why ADB can say it's all canon and none of it's canon.

Seaward wrote:Look at it this way; how often has GW "core" canon changed? Space Marines didn't start out as monastic, gene-bred knights, for example. Their entire backstory has changed completely from its first iteration, and they're far from the only example.

I get what you mean - I guess it's just that I think GW as a company has way more of a right to change/retcon their setting than some novel writer as an individual. This may be wishful thinking, though, but either way I'd say GW knows best how they are going to develop the setting, so their stuff would always be somewhat more "solid". In the end, the setting revolves around the world as their own books explain it, not a single novel author (though occasionally BL stuff gets "adopted" as Gav said).

I wouldn't even have much of a problem if studio material would ever really turn out to not be canon as some of you have interpreted it (though I'm still not convinced there) - I'd think it would be a bad solution, but it would at least allow everyone to go with his own idea of the setting. What "grinds my gears" is that there is some seriously messed up licensed stuff out there, as ADB mentions himself, and that there's way too many people around telling and being told that these kinds of books, based on nothing more than a single freelance writer's personal opinion and interpretation, are establishing some kind of "law" that is supposed to override other players' beliefs.
The burnt child dreads the fire. As I mentioned in some other thread, I actually used to think like this perceived majority as well, until I stumbled over one inconsistency too many and started to look for author statements on the issue, or where exactly the idea that everything should be canon originated from. I guess you could say I was trying to save what I "grew up" to believe based on GW's own material, which I saw grossly violated by certain individual novel authors.

As someone else has put it in another thread, in the end all that stuff from BL/FW/FFG really is nothing more than licensed fan-fiction, though mostly of a higher quality and with a modicum of professional QC. For them to be more, GW would require a proper canon policy, and probably something like SW's internal consistency database.

Seaward wrote:The canon status of anything is, inevitably, fluid, which is why ADB can say it's all canon and none of it's canon.

But then nothing would be canon. Period. If there is no solid stuff to hold on to, why the oxymoron? I still see that bit as an inherently contradictory and unnecessarily confusing comment, and potentially a diversion.

I agree with Lynata on this point. Canonicity cannot be fluid. That would make it pointless. Take Star Wars for example again: Vader dies at the end of Episode VI, nobody will argue that isn't canon. If this was fluid, that would mean that whether or not he died could change or be up for interpretation. This would in turn mean that some author could write a novel about how Vader took his grandkids to build a giant snowman on Hoth, while another author can write about the universe where Vader actually did die. This kind of inconsistency is why the concept of canon exists at all.

Something being canon means that it is not fluid. I'm not sure how I feel about what is and isn't canon in terms of GW, BL, FW, FFG. However, I don't see how anyone can disagree with Lynata that something can't be canon and not canon at the same time. It just doesn't work that way. It either is, or it isn't.

Arguing about it when there simply is no official stance on canon is foolish.

Aaron Dembski-Bowden has made it clear that there is apparently no consensus on canon at all, and he even notes that BL still produces canon, and puts Forge World on the same level as BL and studio material. He then said that he believes it is fair to say FFG counts as canon too. He then notes not only does he ignore stupid BL details, but also studio details. He also believes that what matters most are not the details, but the "unalterable themes etched in stone." He clearly supports a loose canon stance where you are to decide what your own perception of the 40k universe is.

Of course, you can disagree with him, but it's folly to argue, there isn't an official stance on canon, as I said.

IMO, it is preferable if BL is regarded with the same status as codices. Does BL put out some crap? Apparently, though I haven't read it. But so does the studio material, I have never read a BL book as bad as some gak the studio has put out, Draigo didn't come from a BL novel. And on the flipside, no studio material comes close to being as compelling as A Thousand Sons was. Beyond that, some of the richest and best parts of the setting, are from BL, almost the entirety of what we know of the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy comes from it.

But that's just my opinion, and is no more valid than another's.

lledwey wrote:I agree with Lynata on this point. Canonicity cannot be fluid. That would make it pointless.

Of course it can. Just because something is canon now doesn't mean it always was, or always will be.

To continue your Star Wars analogy, once upon a time it was canon that Boba Fett spoke with an American accent. Now the canon is that he is a Mandalorian, which is apparantly another word for 'New Zealander'.

Once upon a time it was canon that Vader brought news of his son's existence to the Emperor. Now, the canon is that the Emperor tells Vader.

Once it was canon that in death Anakin Skywalker's Force spirit appeared in the form of a slightly pudgy middle-aged man. Now, the canon is that after his redemption his sprit regained the appearance of the whiny little git he was before he turned evil.

For that matter, once upon a time, the canon was that Darth Vader was a merciless, evil, nasty grinch of a guy. Now, the canon is that he's, you know, just misunderstood, and missing his girl.


Canon is simply what is accepted now as 'official'.

insaniak wrote:For that matter, once upon a time, the canon was that Darth Vader was a merciless, evil, nasty grinch of a guy. Now, the canon is that he's, you know, just misunderstood, and missing his girl.

I dunno, I always considered Vader a little bitch, even in the OT.

I am likely in the minority in terms of this.

Mandalorians are Kiwis? Alright then: Go All Blacks!

OK, I messed up my point a bit there. What I really meant to focus on was the 'at the same time' part. Yeah, what is canon changes (retcon). However, something can't be canon and not canon 'at the same time.' George Lucas can surprise us and on the new Blu-Ray release of Star Wars, Vader actually lives and everything is cool, and the canon has changed. It can't be, though, that he both lives and dies at the same time, and both are canon. That is what Lynata is arguing and that is what I was trying (and failing) to support.

lledwey wrote:It can't be, though, that he both lives and dies at the same time, and both are canon.

Sure it can. It just depends on the level of veracity that you choose to apply to your canon... which is the point being made in this thread.

We tend to treat canon as if it represents the things that we know for certain. But what makes the 40K canon a little different to Star Wars is that statement that nothing is certain. Everything you know may well be a lie. So while in Star Wars, one source stating that Vader is dead and another stating that he is alive would be a problem. In 40K, one source stating that Abaddon is dead, and another stating that he is alive simply represents two possible truths. Which is correct depends entirely on who you choose to believe.

OK, I see what you mean with that, however it brings up another question: There IS some sort of canon in 40k, right? What you're saying is that we the reader/player/whatever may not know for sure what that is, but surely it must exist?

Another thing, in your example, by sources do you mean authors writing the books, or characters in the stories stating these things. If it is the character in a story telling us, then that doesn't make both options canon. The only thing that is canon is that both characters told different stories. If the author is telling us as an omniscient observer that he is alive, then that is different.

In truth, what there is is a messy hodge-podge of patched-together fluff that has evolved from a game background thrown together as an excuse to take Warhammer Fantasy into space by a bunch of people in the late 80s who really weren't taking the whole thing very seriously.

You could, if you were so inclined, declare the actual studio work (as in rulebook and codexes) as the real, 'official' canon... but what you would have as a result is still so full of holes and inconsistencies that you're not really achieving anything.

That, I think, is exactly why they've taken the line they have with the 40K 'canon'... It would be far too hard at this point to completely patch up 20 years worth of additions, retcons, poorly thought out story hooks, and short stories, fluff snippets and background synopsisisisissses written by 2 dozen different guys... so they simply declare that 'everything is canon... and nothing is'... and leave it up to us to sort it out as we see fit.

So would you say then something like this?

Since the whole story of 40k is really a background setting for the game, that every novel written is merely "something that could very well happen in this crazy grimdark universe." The BL novels give us an in depth look at some of the stuff vaguely described in the BRB and other rulebooks, to let us get a better feel for the universe. Whether or not that stuff actually happened is irrelevant, because you the reader now have a better picture in your head of the grim darkness of the 41st millenium.

I guess that doesn't sound so bad actually. I still feel like nothing is canon based on this, but I now also feel like it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon, as long as it properly conveys the feeling of the 40k universe (so no Goto.)

lledwey wrote: If the author is telling us as an omniscient observer that he is alive, then that is different.

That sort of goes along with ADB's little explanation, though. We're not supposed to treat the author as an omniscient observer and peddler of ultimate truth. The story we're reading may be truth, and may not be. It may be a [i]version of the truth. We don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lledwey wrote:Since the whole story of 40k is really a background setting for the game, that every novel written is merely "something that could very well happen in this crazy grimdark universe." The BL novels give us an in depth look at some of the stuff vaguely described in the BRB and other rulebooks, to let us get a better feel for the universe. Whether or not that stuff actually happened is irrelevant, because you the reader now have a better picture in your head of the grim darkness of the 41st millenium.

That would about sum it up, quite eloquently, yes

Lynata wrote:I get what you mean - I guess it's just that I think GW as a company has way more of a right to change/retcon their setting than some novel writer as an individual. This may be wishful thinking, though, but either way I'd say GW knows best how they are going to develop the setting, so their stuff would always be somewhat more "solid". In the end, the setting revolves around the world as their own books explain it, not a single novel author (though occasionally BL stuff gets "adopted" as Gav said).

Well, let me ask you this - who at the studio has final authority on what is and is not canon? Mat Ward can throw whatever he likes into a codex, and as long as it passes the editors, it becomes canon, correct? Whoever edits it ultimately works for the creative head of the 40K brand, so said editor is, ultimately, deputized to make canon decisions.

Here's the interesting thing; the same's true of Black Library. As ADB and a couple other authors have said, BL's canon decisions ultimately come from that same dude, when you follow the chain up far enough.

There's plenty of crap from BL, but the majority of it is from before, for lack of a better expression, they started to care. With the advent of the Horus Heresy series, and in the acquisition of guys like Abnett and ADB, they really upped the quality of their work, and have become far more cohesive in terms of the universe they present. That doesn't mean entirely uniform, of course; ADB, as he said, is free to completely disregard everything else anyone's ever written when he settles down to pound out his next novel. Chances are he won't, of course, but as long as somebody in the GW hierarchy decides it's 40K enough, it'll get the seal of approval.

As someone else has put it in another thread, in the end all that stuff from BL/FW/FFG really is nothing more than licensed fan-fiction, though mostly of a higher quality and with a modicum of professional QC. For them to be more, GW would require a proper canon policy, and probably something like SW's internal consistency database.

I don't think that's accurate at all. When BL writers are sitting down with the guy in charge of all 40K fluff - and they most definitely are, on the HH series - it's well beyond the realm of licensed fiction. The HH series is a GW initiative to flesh out the backstory of 40K; it's printed under the BL label 'cause, hey, that's who prints the novels for GW. An analogy: Merrill Lynch is part of Bank of America now, and handles a lot of the investment banking business of BoA. They're still called Merrill Lynch, but ultimately, they report to BoA's CEO, and they're wholly owned by BoA. Wouldn't it be a little absurd to consider them as separate from BoA?

insaniak wrote:Which is correct depends entirely on who you choose to believe.

*nods* But that still results in "nothing being canon" alone. If it's up to the player, there is no canon at all - canon isn't something individual and personal, it's a set of "rules" for the background that are there to provide a basis, a common ground for people. If everyone can pick and choose, this common ground does not exist, and so neither does the concept of canon.

lledwey wrote:Since the whole story of 40k is really a background setting for the game, that every novel written is merely "something that could very well happen in this crazy grimdark universe."

I still would have a problem with that in that it's not just events where BL may, at times, seem strange - rather, it's authors completely not getting how an army or the technology works (i.e. how it was described by the studio; how we got to know it first).

Of course that doesn't count as much anymore if you think that studio material isn't "canon", but it's a differentiation that I feel has to be pointed out. Events are actually less of a problem since, as said, really just about anything could happen ("the warp did it" ). But people, organizations and technology don't change overnight depending on who describes them. In short, you do not necessarily end up "having a better picture in your head", it could well end up being twisted and warped because you "read the wrong book". Like looking at the Cain novels for getting a feel of the SoB, or Goto for Space Marines.

Seaward wrote:Well, let me ask you this - who at the studio has final authority on what is and is not canon? Mat Ward can throw whatever he likes into a codex, and as long as it passes the editors, it becomes canon, correct? Whoever edits it ultimately works for the creative head of the 40K brand, so said editor is, ultimately, deputized to make canon decisions.
Here's the interesting thing; the same's true of Black Library. As ADB and a couple other authors have said, BL's canon decisions ultimately come from that same dude, when you follow the chain up far enough.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Black Library exists to export novels to customers, not to import canon from authors. If GW doesn't adopt novel stuff by default - which seems to be the case, according to Gav Thorpe - then the chief editor of BL doesn't have to be deputized to deal with canon at all. He can still say "no" to authors (and probably does), but ultimately his decisions do not mean anything for the wider setting. Else we would have less contradictions throughout this material, and ADB wouldn't be free to ignore the stuff he thinks is silly.

"In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work."
- from a discussion between a new BL writer and George Mann, head of GW Licensing and chief editor of the Black Library, from the 2008 General Meeting

Addendum to the above: I'm not sure whether BL's stance on this has changed since that statement was made, for apparently ADB is free to disregard that "studio canon". Or it may be that BL editing just isn't very thorough and that ADB only thinks he can do this since he got away with it - just like Goto did with his multilasers, which apparently wasn't working as intended as well.

It's all a bit messy since there are quite a few contradictions between the various statements by different people. What I did with my personal opinion was basically to try and find some sort of consensus between all these comments. I do not at all guarantee it may be accurate.

Seaward wrote:With the advent of the Horus Heresy series, and in the acquisition of guys like Abnett and ADB, they really upped the quality of their work, and have become far more cohesive in terms of the universe they present.

That seems to be in the eye of the beholder, or at least depend on the individual author. The Horus Heresy series is certainly some sort of exception to this, as ADB pointed out, but if this extends to anywhere beyond internal consistency remains unanswered. The authors don't seem to do much more than making sure that one book of this series doesn't contradict another, as well as pitching each other ideas. And whilst I certainly agree about Dan Abnett's quality of writing, he too has introduced a number of "controversial" ideas (navigator servitors?) and opinion on the internets seems surprisingly polarized in that lots of people think he is "super-canon" (direct quote) whereas others think the entire "Abnettverse" is sort of, uh, unreliable. And the numbers appear to be roughly fifty-fifty. I have yet to start reading one of his books (I actually have the GG omnibus here and will get to it soonish), but what I heard of these ideas so far makes me a bit suspicious. I still expect it to be a good read.

Seaward wrote:I don't think that's accurate at all. When BL writers are sitting down with the guy in charge of all 40K fluff - and they most definitely are, on the HH series - it's well beyond the realm of licensed fiction.

But the outcome may still be a contradiction, so what does this kind of input matter as long as no boundaries are enforced? Case in point, FFGs Deathwatch RPG or the Space Marine computer game - both were involved with Alan Merret (the current GW Head of IP), and both take liberties with certain stuff. Perhaps this is because it really only matters to, as ADB put it, "get the feeling right", but either way stuff like that shouldn't be claimed to be more than it is when the details are allowed to get messed up. That's the main thing I'm criticizing - that the wrong stuff is being treated like The One Truth rather than just a single freelance author's interpretation.

This is an interesting thread, by the way, thanks for everyone's opinions so far!

I think this part is important:

Interestingly, as creators in this setting, we’re under no strict obligation to reference one another, and cooperation is usually self-driven. (The exception to this is the Horus Heresy series, which is extremely well-organised, and all of us are in constant communication.)

Given the amount of collaboration and organization, this means to me that the Horus Heresy novels are as close to "canon" as anything in 40K gets.

Without reading the entire thread because I don't have time (sorry if I annoy people with if I end up saying something that's already been said, and as a note, I'm also biased because ADB is my favourite authour, not just 40k, just my favourite authour), the way I've always taken it is that what BL produce is canon.

To different degrees.

Certain authours I will take as gospel canon, and others as a good read but not pay too much attention to assuming what they're writing is counted as canon but just enjoy something written in the universe.

This is because someone may write something damn good but isn't on BL's usual payroll and they're not going to not publish it because what he/she wrote contradicts something written six years ago in another novel on the way, for an example I've come across, Cadian homelife - do they have a breeding programme or marry and have families. Very different, both have been stated. However, it doesn't matter all that much.

Some authours you read and go "yes, that's canon" because of who they are and what they're entrusted with.

I think GW has more control over storylines written by BL than some people may think, which is evidenced by interviews with BL authours making comments like "they let me write this, and I didn't think they would" or "I've asked for this and they offered me that" for example.

Another thing I think needs to be recognised is that 40k is constantly adapting and evolving. The entire world of Catachan and its subsequent IG began from an almost off hand reference to a creature called a Catachan Devil. From that one throw away reference, a bit of flavour, and look what became of it. 40k universe is always evolving. What might have been good canon ten/fifteen years ago doesn't work or fit anymore as the world is continually being fleshed out and so canon can change.

Well, beer's finished now, so I will get off my soapbox and go back to re-reading Cadian Blood.

It just means what I've always said about the fluff:

Nothing is sacred, it can and will be changed at a whim (often to support the release cycle of new models), don't get attached.

Of course, the above statement comes with the very big caveat that just because the above is true doesn't mean that we have to accept every bit of fluff as equally as true or of the same quality (one need only read the GK Codex to see a good example of that), but for the most part fluff is fluid in 40K, and that's saying something for a universe that is intentionally vague.