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.

Third person narrative is not used to suggest that a story is only one possible account of many. There are literary devices that do that. The authors of the HH series almost never use them and never use them in the course of the main narrative. (They show up in things like, for example, faux quotations.)

There is a corporate policy that "canon" is not a topic to even worry about. Even ADB said he got in trouble for talking about the concept publicly (and then hastily retracted that statement).

So you've got employees and contract writers spouting the corporate policy that cannot account for the stylistic choice.

 Lynata wrote:
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example.

Because hair dye couldn't explain that.

I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Manchu wrote:Third person narrative is not used to suggest that a story is only one possible account of many.

No. It is used to write cool stories that are entertaining.
And novels are also not a medium used to suggest that something is an accurate historical portrayal.

The fact remains that we have the authors themselves telling us what these stories are supposed to express. You can't just take their creations and declare them to be something different, completely dismissing intent.
And even if that intent would not be clear, you don't really believe that this "stylistic choice" has been made based on concerns regarding historical validity rather than simply traditional storytelling (established standards) and thus sales... do you? Especially given how you just ranted about marketing?

Void__Dragon wrote:I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Indeed. I just wanted to mention one that would fit into the thread, and my knowledge of novel contradictions is based largely on the snippets I'm picking up on dakka.
At times it can be difficult to find examples that are not explainable by simply pointing to the old "it's a big universe" cop-out (which is often valid, actually, just not in as many cases as this card gets pulled imho).

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example.

Because hair dye couldn't explain that.

I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Agree, like this isn't even a contradiction....Contradicting actions which shape the galaxy is my objection....

Granted, I suppose we just have different ideas of the Primarchs and their concerns if you think cosmetics are more likely an explanation than a simple writer's mistake.

I mean, if it was Fulgrim I could understand, but ...

Fulgrim and Sanguinius have always competed for the prestigious title of "Teh Bishie Hawtness".

 Lynata wrote:
And novels are also not a medium used to suggest that something is an accurate historical portrayal.

As I have noted before, this is where you and I part company -- not because I think the HH novels are an "accurate historical portray" but because I don't agree that any such thing is even applicable. I have mentioned this to you time and again, but 40k is not some alternate dimension from ours that we can treat as another world. It's just a setting in which connected stories are told. Some of these stories are connected very loosely; others are connected very tightly. There are examples of story series that have very explicit connections to one another (Guant's Ghosts, Swallow's BA books, Graham McNeill's UM books, etc). HH is such a series -- it is different only insomuch as more than one author is involved. Even so, these guys still make mistakes -- especially in light of an evolving corporate policy that does not rate "canonicty" at all on the priority list ... although, with the HH series, that is starting to change:

I should also state at this point that after speaking to the mysterious Powers-That-Be at the Black Library Weekender, I do know they are compiling a list of any continuity errors, potentially to rectify them in future print runs of the Horus Heresy novels. I also believe that work has begun on producing a definitive canonical discovery order.

http://baddice.co.uk/horus-heresy/

There's also Graham McNeill patching up in his upcoming work Wolf Hunt an alleged continuity error in Outcast Dead.

Manchu wrote:As I have noted before, this is where you and I part company -- not because I think the HH novels are an "accurate historical portray" but because I don't agree that any such thing is even applicable. I have mentioned this to you time and again, but 40k is not some alternate dimension from ours that we can treat as another world. It's just a setting in which connected stories are told.

How is it being "a setting" different to it being "another world", given that in this case it is clearly not the reality we are living in? I'm not quite sure I can follow your argument here.
Or what this has to do with the actual issue - that it is still just "tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers".

Manchu wrote:although, with the HH series, that is starting to change

Tbh, they should have done that long ago. It's one thing to have various unconnected novels (in terms of location, plot, characters, etc) conflict each other on certain details - but when a single series of interconnected books that are supposed to follow a single overarcing plot does it, that's a bit embarrasing, especially given the level of communication that supposedly exists between the writers.
I'm not sure if it's still worth the effort by now, but if that also means that BL is committed to continue the series for a longer duration it is certainly better late than never for the fans of the series.

Needless to say, the "definite canonical" part sounds like the usual wishful thinking again, though. Whatever they'll come up with, I doubt it will change anything on how the franchise is treated outside the small circle of HH authors.

When I say "setting" I mean just one among many narrative tools. It's just a largely incidental thing that exists for the sake of the real point, like for example Sandy Mitchell's interminable Ciaphas Cain bit. So the point of the Cain novels is not to flesh out the "world" of 40k but just to again and again tell the same joke about Cain. You can see this with his portrayal of the SoB. His SoB don't seem to correspond to SoB anywhere else. The reason for that is his SoB only exist in the first place to set up more Cain jokes. The way I personally deal with this is to remember that -- unlike the HH series -- the Cain novels are written as an account (namely, his uncollected and annotated memoirs).

I just settle the issue by concluding that the Cain books kind of suck and ignore them, tbh.

It isn't as hard as you two are making it.

Also, the fan fluff of gamers does not have as much value on the setting as that created by GW, FW, BL, or FFG. Be real Lynata. My chapter of Slaaneshi Grey Knights who prey on Eldar children is not as canon as the codex material.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It isn't as hard as you two are making it.

Quite right. Here's a better way of making my point:

There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity. All things being equal, contradictory statements on successive pages of the same book indicate a mistake on the part of the author and/or editor. The same thing applies as between novels in the same series. Any such mistakes as in the HH series have nothing to do with 40k not having canon or fluff sometimes being presented as propaganda, distortion, error, legend, and outright lie.

 Manchu wrote:
When I say "setting" I mean just one among many narrative tools. It's just a largely incidental thing that exists for the sake of the real point, like for example Sandy Mitchell's interminable Ciaphas Cain bit. So the point of the Cain novels is not to flesh out the "world" of 40k but just to again and again tell the same joke about Cain. You can see this with his portrayal of the SoB. His SoB don't seem to correspond to SoB anywhere else. The reason for that is his SoB only exist in the first place to set up more Cain jokes. The way I personally deal with this is to remember that -- unlike the HH series -- the Cain novels are written as an account (namely, his uncollected and annotated memoirs).

I just take anything said by Cain with a grain of salt as its his memoirs and thus possibly not how the events actually happened. Though the Cain novels do flesh out 40k by adding more worlds and such.

Void__Dragon wrote:Also, the fan fluff of gamers does not have as much value on the setting as that created by GW, FW, BL, or FFG. Be real Lynata. My chapter of Slaaneshi Grey Knights who prey on Eldar children is not as canon as the codex material.

Not according to Gav Thorpe.
You're operating on a policy that you yourself have made up. If you want fan fluff to be of lesser value - and yes, I certainly presume that the majority of gamers feels likewise - then that is your choice, not something that anyone at GW is suggesting. Otherwise you are free to direct me to any statement from a current or former GW employee contradicting that which we've heard so far.

Manchu wrote:There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity.

This, too, is a policy you yourself made up, and in this case it contradicts to something that Andy Hoare posted (coincidentally as a comment on ADB's blog):
"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

See, I don't want you to change the way you treat your preferred sources or how you interpret them. This is the liberty we are being granted. I am only sceptical when posts evoke the impression of attaching a degree of authority to something (as I believe this to be misleading), or when fans are confused about contradictions or hard-to-explain stuff (as this may be intentional), or when they are frustrated at "retcons" or additions they do not like (when their adoption is entirely optional).

By now we have ample explanation on how the franchise works. There is no need to come up with a contradictory policy ourselves. This is not our franchise - and if you make it so and "ursurp" it (perhaps claiming that this is what we as fans have a right to), then you have already lost the very authority you claim to establish, as in the end each of us is just a smalltime fan with an opinion, nothing more. Anyone who wants more than that should try to get into GW and change the status quo.

 Lynata wrote:
Not according to Gav Thorpe.
You're operating on a policy that you yourself have made up. If you want fan fluff to be of lesser value - and yes, I certainly presume that the majority of gamers feels likewise - then that is your choice, not something that anyone at GW is suggesting. Otherwise you are free to direct me to any statement from a current or former GW employee contradicting that which we've heard so far.

I don't care what Gav Thorpe says.

He's wrong.

By all means, direct me to the last time the fanfic of a Sister of Battle fornicating with Nurgle cultists consensually(This exists) made it into a codex.

The notion that fan-made fluff is just as official as that actually put out by the company is a nonsensical argument put forth by the company to appease the fanbase in a lazy way (Like GW's "All and nothing is canon", they're just too lazy/incompetent to keep a fairly consistent universe).

Fan fluff by definition is unofficial and unlicensed by GW, and as such has less inherent value than fluff put out by the company itself.

To argue otherwise would be madness, sort of like a psyker fething an Untouchable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
as in the end each of us is just a smalltime fan with an opinion, nothing more.

I assure you, I am possessed of an intellect vastly greater than the sum total of every mind that has ever been associated with Games Workshop put together, my point of view can not be so easily dismissed.

Do you agree that some parts of heresy/40k are no better than fanfiction ?
Who cares about consistency if you got books to sell....(BL PoV)
Drop in 2-3 primarch fights, oil it with betrayal, and season it with easter eggs....Would you agree?

He's not "wrong" just for having a different opinion than you. The difference between him and you is that his position in the franchise allowed him to establish or help establish certain policies which the franchise follows. Your refusal to accept them does not change the facts that all the companies associated with the license do. This is the true madness here.

And for the record, I have actually seen some fan fluff which, to me, has a lot more inherent value than some fluff in the official products. Even if that's chiefly because some of the latter category was so abysmal.

 Lynata wrote:
He's not "wrong" just for having a different opinion than you. The difference between him and you is that his position in the franchise allowed him to establish or help establish certain policies which the franchise follows. Your refusal to accept them does not change the facts that all the companies associated with the license do. This is the true madness here.

And for the record, I have actually seen some fan fluff which, to me, has a lot more inherent value than some fluff in the official products. Even if that's chiefly because some of the latter category was so abysmal.

You're confusing my usage of "value" with "quality". I have no doubt that there is good 40k fanfiction, army fluff, or that fans can create exciting stories and characters within the setting (I am participating in a Dark Heresy and Black Crusade campaign as we speak for exactly this reason).

But see, unless GW sees your work, and actively wants to make it a part of the official universe, it simply has less relevance from a literary standpoint in terms of defining the 40k setting. For better or worse.

Hmmh, I could agree that it has less relevance because the community is more quickly to dismiss it than officially licensed material, in part due to the continuously propagated lie that there is a "canon", but also because the official material is available to a broader audience. It's difficult to compare the promotion of one's personal fluff with a professionally distributed book or video game, that much is sure.

In essence, it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There have been some cases where GW actually did incorporate fan fiction in their own material - just like they occasionally adopt novel fluff into a Codex. An example that springs to mind would be Canoness Astra's Order of the Silver Lily.

Which makes Canoness Astra's fluff suddenly far more relevant in terms of discussion on a message-board and reflection on a setting.

But my Eldar-violating Grey Knights will never have that privilege.

 Lynata wrote:

Vquote=Manchu wrote:There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity.

This, too, is a policy you yourself made up

Not at all. If page 42 says a character wears red armor and page 43 says he wears blue armor then, all other things being equal, there is a mistake. No marketing slogans, whether you confuse you them with literary style or not, change that. The same applies to a discrepancy between the first and last chapters of a novel or between different novels in the same series.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
But see, unless GW sees your work, and actively wants to make it a part of the official universe, it simply has less relevance from a literary standpoint in terms of defining the 40k setting. For better or worse.

TBH, Lynata doesnt actually think a sales pitch by GW employees -- your stories matter as much as ours kids! -- is the real standard for discussing 40k, even if she will relentless pretend that is the case for the sake of argument. Actually, her own standard is something she calls "studio fluff" which is pretty exclusive because it not only cuts out licensed products like FFG's books but even Black Library and Forge World.

I've been here long enough to be well-acquainted with Lynata's preferences, and indeed remember when she outwardly believed that only the studio fluff was canon.

Personally, I think depriving 40k of all but studio fluff takes away a lot of the best characters and stories in the setting.

Yeah, it took several years, but my opinions actually do evolve when confronted with irrefutable explanations.
I started out believing that "everything is canon", simply because that's what everyone said, and I was naive enough to believe it. Then, as I discovered more and more discrepancies, this changed towards a strict preference regarding Codex fluff, spurred on by a commend made by George Mann. Then, further reading brought be to the blogs and comments that you surely know from the posts where I cite them...

Manchu wrote:Not at all. If page 42 says a character wears red armor and page 43 says he wears blue armor then, all other things being equal, there is a mistake. No marketing slogans, whether you confuse you them with literary style or not, change that. The same applies to a discrepancy between the first and last chapters of a novel or between different novels in the same series.

In that case I would assume so, yes, as the books are then "connected" by something more than just bearing the 40k label. However, when it is two entirely independent novels, all bets are off, for the author may have intentionally chosen to disregard his colleague's idea and go with something else. This is what I mean when I disagree with the idea that there is a "continuity" between all of the products released under the franchise. Sure, some facts will always remain the same, such as the Emperor being a dead guy etc - this even Black Library will enforce. However, the many details that are the source of so much debate between fluff lovers? Optional. All of them.

Void__Dragon wrote:Personally, I think depriving 40k of all but studio fluff takes away a lot of the best characters and stories in the setting.

But also a lot of the worst.

 Lynata wrote:
This is what I mean when I disagree with the idea that there is a "continuity" between all of the products released under the franchise.

I agree with you on that. That's exactly why I distinguished between continuity and canon. What is less clear is, what is the difference between canon and what the guys you are so fond of quoting really mean by "established facts."

Hair colour should be an easy one really though

That's a really good question, actually. I'd hazard a guess that the obvious, universally acknowledged things could fit on both sides of a single sheet of paper. Gav Thorpe, talking about his experience as an editor at the Black Library, gave these examples for Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40.000:
"There are certainly established facts – the current Emperor is Karl-Franz, the Blood Angels have red armour, Commissar Yarrick defended Hades Hive during the Second Armageddon War."

I have no illusions about there being a certain "grey area" where things will depend on the individual editor, however, who may approve or disapprove material presented for review depending on their own opinion, or even lack of knowledge/attention (possibly explaining mistakes as well as the biggest controversies).

Hm. I guess the best way to see the situation would be a graph, where the more something goes into detail, the less likely it is to be "established" and get reproduced between multiple authors.

So basically you have to acknowledge that the picture drawn by former GW employees and freelance writers isn't quite so neat. Indeed, as a matter of their own statements (or at least in one case), the entire principle kind of falls apart. There is no canon -- but there are facts ... but there are unlimited valid portrayals ... but wait, there's the problem of those facts again ...

Hm? No, I don't see it quite as confusing.

To me, it seems to work like two categories:
a) a handful of "established facts" which I'd say refers to something that any fan should be able to expect from any official product
b) a load of optional stuff which comes from "tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers"

The first category is something that GW would seem to enforce in their editorial reviews. In theory, you are still at liberty to dismiss them. I don't think a lot of people would do that, though this is more a result of voluntary conformity, or a modicum of respect for the setting. Or perhaps just the fear of getting laughed out of the forums by other fans *cough*shadowemperor*cough*

[edit] Perhaps it also depends on how we interpret Gav's meaning when he says "anything else" after "established facts" ... meaning, whether he refers to those optional additions that would fit, or whether he refers to something that is in conflict with said facts. I admit that this can be interpreted in two ways.

The trouble is, what counts as an "established fact" as opposed to "optional stuff" is not officially defined -- at least not publicly. On some issues, you and I (using us as an example) will be able to easily agree on what is an established fact: for example, is it not an established fact that Ultramar is a semi-autonomous region ruled by the Ultramarines? I think we can agree on that. But neither of us can point to any list of established facts in doing so. In fact, all we can point to is what GW and its affiliates and licensees have published, which brings us back to square one.

Which is why I think it'd be better not to point to anything, and simply post all we have and treat it all like options from which we can choose from, as far as our own personal vision of the 41st millennium is concerned.

That way, we avoid the contradictions that would undoubtedly arise when comparing all published material, and we avoid having to cave in to material that (even when not being in direct conflict with anything else) just doesn't fit in with our preferred interpretation of the setting.

In short, we could still make arguments on why we believe that "X is better" - but we should not just declare "it is so". Opinion, rather than dogma.

Well, we know we can declare that BA wear red armor. It is not an equally valid option to say BA wear blue armor. If someone comes to the forum and says, "I painted my BA blue" -- fine, who cares? That's different from coming to the forum and saying, in 40k the BA wear blue armor. No they don't. And saying, "well, mine do" really just doesn't matter.