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.

 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.

 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. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

If that's so absurd how come those things exists?-)

And of course we have the authors themselves saying it's not absolute truth. But yeah I'm sure you know better what's reliable and what's not than the person writing the books in question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It does have something to do with the format. Third person omniscient writes from all perspectives, even non protagonists thoughts, feelings and opinions are known to the narration, so are all situations and circumstances. Are you really suggesting that, In Horus Rising everyone's perspective is right except for Horus' or everyone's perspective is wrong except for Loken. Its just stupid, unless you actually have an ex-machina at the end stating yeah he actually thought this, but still whats the point, if Horus was wrong, what was he wrong in, was everything he said thought and felt wrong and didn't happen, or specific things. Why you would think that, when there is absolutely nothing suggesting that. its 'what is the meaning of the book' gone crazy. I can't even begin to understand that. as for opinions and feelings being incorrect, yeah that isn't being brought into question, opinions and belief are by definition fallible, but if the character knows their folly a narrator makes it known, Otherwise its up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong. But if the narration makes a factual claim; its a factual claim. A narration in third person omniscient is omniscient. Does the writer know 3 quarters of everything that happens and 1 quarter, they only have a good idea, I mean how do you work out what to take for granted and what not to, even when its written from an omniscient format. I don't know how you can accept factual claims by the narrator you like and chop up those you don't or that don't agree with you to, ah its implicit. Plus when you take into account that other writers carry on writing the same characters, with the same beliefs and opinions and personality with new ones based on that same existing characters personality etc. it becomes even more bizarre for me to understand that.

1st, 2nd, 3rd person. They can all be unreliable narrators. It's common enough trick in books to have unreliable narrators even in 2nd/3rd persons.

40K clearly has a canon in operation even if they don't use that term. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A loose canon and riddled with retcons compared to some other universes, but the fact that there are stable "THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE" facts about the universe is the definition of a canon. Space Marines exist. Bolters fire bolts. Horus existed and rebelled. The fact there may be some mistakes, contradictions, or retcons does not in itself mean there is no canon. It means the canon is imperfect but then so is just about every other IP property.

See this following quote from Gav Thorpe on his website about submitting to BL:

Approved submissions get notified, and we work out the next step. Usually this is “Await our instructions”, but it could be specific feedback like “You’ve not quite got the dialogue for Space Marines right, please make more formal” or “This isn’t how the warp works, please check the 40k rulebook” or “Would this not be better from the Tau point of view?” At this stage we are inviting the submitter to tweak their work to make up for what we see as its weak points.

https://gavthorpe.co.uk/2017/03/31/march-2017-qa/

The fact that aspiring writers sending in submissions to BL have to adhere to certain standards and facts about the 40K universe show there is an operating canon. If the editors can say "This isn't how the warp works" (i.e. "You've got it wrong") shows it is not anything goes, and those limits are what canon is. Without canon, fictional settings collapse because limits on what exists, what happened, or what can happen in a setting is what canon is.


Marc Gascoigne's statement was a simple cop out of having to exercise any quality control. He was simply wrong about this just as he was wrong about the supposed impossibility of writing from a xenos POV (which was the supposed rationale for the "Human POV only forever" BL policy). The fact there are now multiple works in which there are xenos POV show it is not the impossibility he thought it was. There are far more than a dozen examples if one includes the xenos POV parts in human protagonist POV novels in addition to the pure xenos POV novels. Clearly Marc Gascoigne's statements are not set in stone Word of God statements.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.

Same way than Iliad does. It is third person narrative from several viewpoints, it probably is not an accurate account of Trojan War. All these stories naturally inform our understanding of the setting, but I absolutely reject the notion that the format in which the strory is written has anything to do with the reliability of the story or what story 'takes precedence' in the case of a conflict. The format of a story is merely an artistic choice by the author.

But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.

Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.

I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.

They're just ase canon than this book about Guilliman we were talking about. Sure, these things do not jibe with many other things we have heard about the setting, but contradictions can exist in a canon. Certainly you know from where word canon originates? It is not like the Bible is free of contradictions.

No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).

Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.

The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.

Nah. They're just stories. And there are three stories about how the Empreror was saved, all of them canon. Just like there are several contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words, all canon.

Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.

There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.

Or to use a less grandiose example, in one version of Batman's origin it is Joker who kills Bruce Wayne's parents, and in another version it is someone else. One of these versions is not 'wrong' they're just different versions of the same story. People can somehow live with Gotham TV series not being consistent with the comics or Batman films, or MCU not being consistent with the Marvel Comics, even though the characters and basic plots threads are the same. I really don't understand why it is so hard to treat 40K this way too, even though the creators of this fiction pretty much have explicitly told us to do so.

Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.

40k is not like this. Now, you can make an argument that things like the video games or the Ultramarines Movie are universes unto themselves (due to not being Black Library), but I don't know how strongly I feel on that. Regardless, the Black Library is confirmed to be one single universe. It's not seperate universes sharing characters and plotlines. It's one entity, and as such, has one canon, one "true" chain of events. There may be three in-universe retellings of an event, but there must be a "true" way that event occured.

The only universe I've seen that can pull off the "multiple outcomes are true" style of canon is the Elder Scrolls, via their use of Dragon Breaks. 40k does not have that.

Iracundus wrote:40K clearly has a canon in operation even if they don't use that term. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A loose canon and riddled with retcons compared to some other universes, but the fact that there are stable "THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE" facts about the universe is the definition of a canon. Space Marines exist. Bolters fire bolts. Horus existed and rebelled. The fact there may be some mistakes, contradictions, or retcons does not in itself mean there is no canon. It means the canon is imperfect but then so is just about every other IP property.

Exactly. There are facts, there are truths. Do we need to discuss and dig to find some of them? Yes. Does it change the fact that those truths exist? No.

See this following quote from Gav Thorpe on his website about submitting to BL:

Approved submissions get notified, and we work out the next step. Usually this is “Await our instructions”, but it could be specific feedback like “You’ve not quite got the dialogue for Space Marines right, please make more formal” or “This isn’t how the warp works, please check the 40k rulebook” or “Would this not be better from the Tau point of view?” At this stage we are inviting the submitter to tweak their work to make up for what we see as its weak points.

https://gavthorpe.co.uk/2017/03/31/march-2017-qa/

The fact that aspiring writers sending in submissions to BL have to adhere to certain standards and facts about the 40K universe show there is an operating canon. If the editors can say "This isn't how the warp works" (i.e. "You've got it wrong") shows it is not anything goes, and those limits are what canon is. Without canon, fictional settings collapse because limits on what exists, what happened, or what can happen in a setting is what canon is.

If there was no canon, then Thorpe's quotes on "this isn't how the Warp works" or "you've not quite got the dialogue right" would make no sense.

40k has canon. If it didn't, there'd be no universe.

Marc Gascoigne's statement was a simple cop out of having to exercise any quality control. He was simply wrong about this just as he was wrong about the supposed impossibility of writing from a xenos POV (which was the supposed rationale for the "Human POV only forever" BL policy). The fact there are now multiple works in which there are xenos POV show it is not the impossibility he thought it was. There are far more than a dozen examples if one includes the xenos POV parts in human protagonist POV novels in addition to the pure xenos POV novels. Clearly Marc Gascoigne's statements are not set in stone Word of God statements.

Exalted.

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).

Is anyone else as disturbed as I am that several GW/BL writers apparently have no idea what the word 'canon' even means?

If a fictional setting has "established or agreed-upon constraints governing the background narrative, setting, storyline, characters, etc.", then it has a 'canon'. That's literally the definition of the word as it applies to a fictional setting.

It's especially absurd/hypocritical of Gav Thorpe to claim that there are no wrong or invalid interpetations of the fluff, as he was always one of the most vociferous critics of interpretations that didn't match his own. He devoted a section of the WD article introducing the 3rd edition Eldar codex to lambasting people who considered the Eldar to be the setting's "good guys".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.

Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.

Jesus. It was an example how narrative regardless of format can be unreliable. And often the BL books are not the only versions of the events, for example for many events of the HH there exist several accounts in different publications, rulebooks, codices, White Dwarfs, FW books etc.

No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).

Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.

Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.

You literally do not understand what canon means. All of the different account's of Jesus' last words are obviously canon. Canon is not same as true. It is a body of work, in this case body of work that is official. All lore ever published under GW (including BL and FW) is canon, the stuff I made up about my homebrew chapter is not. What you are talking about is continuity, and 40K doesn't have solid continuity, it has kinda wobbly 'it was probably a bit like this' continuity.

There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.

No, they're all canon. And sure, they cannot all be'true' at the same time in one continuous universe, but that doesn't change their canonity.

Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?

Yes, I do understand that!

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.

Right, we're getting close!

40k is not like this.

No, 40K is like that. They just do not label things so clearly. There are contradicting versions of things that cannot be true. BL books often contradict studio fluff and often each other. Abnet's books deviate so greatly from how the lore is depicted in other sources that many refer his version of the setting Abnetverse.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.

Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.

Jesus. It was an example how narrative regardless of format can be unreliable. And often the BL books are not the only versions of the events, for example for many events of the HH there exist several accounts in different publications, rulebooks, codices, White Dwarfs, FW books etc.

But the format you're using is a retelling of a REAL event. They're not even closely related.

The Black Library books, whilst not the only source of events, are the most comprehensive, and therefore have more validity (according to general scientific method).

No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).

Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.

Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.

You literally do not understand what canon means. All of the different account's of Jesus' last words are obviously canon. Canon is not same as true. It is a body of work, in this case body of work that is official. All lore ever published under GW (including BL and FW) is canon, the stuff I made up about my homebrew chapter is not. What you are talking about is continuity, and 40K doesn't have solid continuity, it has kinda wobbly 'it was probably a bit like this' continuity.

You're missing my point.
Jesus was real. He was only capable of saying his last words once, so there can be only one set of "last words". Therefore, they cannot all be canon. Bear in mind I am using the contemporary definition of canon, being what Duskweaver provided.

And hold on - you've literally just said GW have canon, but you've also said they don't? Which one is it? Do they have a canon or not?
Plus, 40k DOES have continuity. It can be buggy, but it has continuity. Ultramarines are blue. Horus was a traitor. That's continuity. With the HH books, that continuity becomes stronger, like it of loathe it.

There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.

No, they're all canon. And sure, they cannot all be'true' at the same time in one continuous universe, but that doesn't change their canonity.

Yes, but the 40k universe IS continuous. Therefore, there is only one canon, and they cannot all be true, and therefore canon within that single universe!
They physically cannot exist as truths within the same universe - which 40k is. It's the Warhammer 40,00 UNIVERSE after all.

Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?

Yes, I do understand that!

Which is why they have different canons, right? But 40k isn't like that, so they can't have the same diversity of canon between shared characters.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.

Right, we're getting close!

Yes, we are.

40k is not like this.

No, 40K is like that.

Nope.

They just do not label things so clearly. There are contradicting versions of things that cannot be true. BL books often contradict studio fluff and often each other.

Because some of them are these aforementioned propaganda and lies, yes! But some of them, and I'd say the vast majority, are simply flubs by the authors. They can make mistakes. They can write non-canon material in, but it doesn't magically make it canon.

There's still a canon, like it or not.

Abnet's books deviate so greatly from how the lore is depicted in other sources that many refer his version of the setting Abnetverse.

But that only pulls into question those few things that Abnett writes about, not the whole setting? Which is what the discussions I refer to talk about - debating if those parts of the "Abnettverse" are supported by other aspects for 40k.

Onething123456 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Yea, Angron, Curze, and Fulgrim are the picture of mental health.

Outside influences with Butcher's nails, a Daemon sword and Kurze's time on his homeworld.

I love this argument.
Bobby G could be insane.
Nope, Primarchs can't be insane.
Well look at all these outside influences that could have hurt his mental health. It's happened to other Primarchs.
Nope, those other guys went insane from outside influences. +Proceed to list them+

Smudge, stop misusing words. We really do not know whether Jesus even existed nor does his existence has anything to do with canonity of his last words. Biblical canon is what's recorded in the Bible just as 40K canon is what is published by GW. Nothing in this requires either to be contradiction free or indeed true. And of course in case if fiction none of it is really true anyway so contradicting accounts can be eqaully true.

There literally is no reality here, for example you cannot just declare that BL version of events is true while contradicting version of the same events in a codex is in error. First of, you don't have that authority and fiction doesn't work like that in the first place. You saying that makes about as much sense than saying a Batman film is in error because it depicts Batman's origins differently than the comics. You seem to have no trouble in undersranding this in case of superheroes, so I really don't get why you do not understand it in case of 40K. Is it because it is not clearly labelled? (Though it kinda is, Black Library is a different brand.) And of course non-labelled muddy continuity is not unique to 40K. Pre-Craig Bond films are in kinda-sorta-but-not-really in continuty with each other, while Craig films are more clearly a different thing, with it not being stated and by the same company. And then there is Never Say Never again which is a retelling of Thunderball, with the same actor but by a different company.

 Crimson wrote:
Smudge, stop misusing words. We really do not know whether Jesus even existed nor does his existence has anything to do with canonity of his last words. Biblical canon is what's recorded in the Bible just as 40K canon is what is published by GW. Nothing in this requires either to be contradiction free or indeed true. And of course in case if fiction none of it is really true anyway so contradicting accounts can be eqaully true.

Firstly, there is evidence that a Jesus of Nazereth existed, and was executed. What we don't know is if he was the son of God, but that's off topic.

In fiction, contradiction can be equally true, but only if the fictional rules of the setting permit for such a duality. Elder Scrolls universe supports it. Warhammer does not. If someone in 40k says something, there isn't a universe where they don't say it. Or, the three heroes in the Vengeful Spirit encounter: it cannot be Ollanius Pius, an Imperial Fist AND a Custodes at the same time. The way the universe is built means they cannot all be true. Therefore, only one (or none) of these encounters can be canon, but the existence of the other beliefs and retelling is still canon.

There literally is no reality here, for example you cannot just declare that BL version of events is true while contradicting version of the same events in a codex is in error. First of, you don't have that authority and fiction doesn't work like that in the first place.

Which is why people research it, discuss it, to create logical truth. I can absolutely declare BLs version to be true if I can prove why it's more valid. I can't impose my opinion on other people, but if enough people support the same idea, and comes to a consensus, then that IS canon.

You saying that makes about as much sense than saying a Batman film is in error because it depicts Batman's origins differently than the comics. You seem to have no trouble in undersranding this in case of superheroes, so I really don't get why you do not understand it in case of 40K.

Because Movie Batman is not the same universe as Comic Batman! There isn't the same split in Warhammer. There isn't X universe of 40k vs Y universe of 40k. It's one single universe, told via multiple possibly contradictory tales, but fundamentally there IS a truth. There could be miles upon miles of lies before the nugget of truth, but there is that nugget, and that nugget forms the basis of canon.

Stop comparing comic-to-movie canons to 40k. They're not the same.

Is it because it is not clearly labelled? (Though it kinda is, Black Library is a different brand.) And of course non-labelled muddy continuity is not unique to 40K. Pre-Craig Bond films are in kinda-sorta-but-not-really in continuty with each other, while Craig films are more clearly a different thing, with it not being stated and by the same company. And then there is Never Say Never again which is a retelling of Thunderball, with the same actor but by a different company.

Bond's continuity is all over the place, but it has a canon. That canon being that Bond IS 007, they're a British spy, and they like their martini shaken, not stirred.

The real question of James Bond's continuity is if it's the same James Bond, which it largely appears it is not. It far more likely seems that James Bond 007 is a psuedonym for whoever takes up the mantle, which essentially fixes the most of the "muddy continuity".

40k is similar, but it has a canon too. It is told through multiple lenses, some more truthful than others (and some which essentially leave no room for doubt or bias), but it remains connected. Some things we are told are inconsistent with the wider universe. As such, they are non-canon, because they simply do not fit into the logic of the universe. It's not a dozen parallel universe running in tandem - it's a single universe, a single setting, with multiple opinions spread among a core of facts. That core of facts is getting larger, if you like it or not.

Historicity of Jesus is far from certain. Sure, he probaly existed but all records of him are from time decades after he supposedly lived. We don't know he existed in the same way we for example know that Alexander the Great existed. There is like shitton of scholarship on this if you're interested, not that this is really relevant.

As for the actual topic, no there is no real truth about who saved the Emperor, there are just different stories. And they can all be equally true, because there is not some underlying reality behind them. Your harebrained theory abot Bond being a pseudonym is an another example of you not getting how loose centinuity works in fiction.

Furthermore, you don't decide what is canon and it is not same as continuity. Conflicting things can be both canon. In Star Trek it is canon that Federation encounteted the cloaking device first time in 2260s... and were involved in a war where cloaking devices were extensively used in 2250s... Both of those are canon. Sure, it is a continuity error if we assume both of those events to be in continuity with each other but neither of them is non-canon or even wrong.

 Crimson wrote:
As for the actual topic, no there is no real truth about who saved the Emperor, there are just different stories. And they can all be equally true, because there is not some underlying reality behind them. Your harebrained theory abot Bond being a pseudonym is an another example of you not getting how loose centinuity works in fiction.

There is a real truth. Someone saved the Emperor. Not all three. We just don't know which story (if any) is true. If the BL books come around to it, it is logical to assume that it will be the canon truth that what happens in that chamber is the real event.

The Bond theory isn't my own. It's a widely held one, designed to essentially make the Bond canon make as much sense as possible if it's a single universe. I know how loose continuity works. I'm saying that 40k's loose storytelling doesn't change the fact that there are facts in the universe, and that 40k's storytelling is becoming a lot more comprehensive, less obscure, and more based on "this is what happened".

I know that's a bit of a culture shock to you, but that's how things seem to be swinging these days.

Furthermore, you don't decide what is canon and it is not same as continuity. Conflicting things can be both canon. In Star Trek it is canon that Federation encounteted the cloaking device first time in 2260s... and were involved in a war where cloaking devices were extensively used in 2250s... Both of those are canon. Sure, it is a continuity error if we assume both of those events to be in continuity with each other but neither of them is non-canon or even wrong.

No, what needs to be questioned in that situation is which event is the factual one to determine a true canon.

What one would do is question the validity of both sources, to ascertain which is the most relevant. Then, it would be settled that the one which is more relevant is canon, and the other is a continuity error, which might have manifested as an in-universe error.

Take the interpretation of the Codex Astartes. We have 41st millenium Ultramarines and Space Marines in general adhering to the Codex like it's a holy text, something that cannot be broken or disobeyed, who claim that it is what Guilliman intended. That USED to be canon, because it was answer that made the most sense with the data at the time. However, then we get actual spoken dialogue from Guilliman, in the third person omniscient, saying that he doesn't intend for the Codex to be treated like a holy text, and that it should be broken when needed. Therefore, due to the reinforcement and increased validity of what Guilliman says being "correct", that becomes the new canon. The previous canon of "THE CODEX CANNOT BE DISOBEYED" is no longer canon, but it IS an in-universe belief held incorrectly by characters in-universe.

That's how you reconcile conflicting continuity - only one can be canon, but the rest can be explained by in-universe errors, or if that doesn't suffice, simply poor writing on the author's part.

This is not how it works! None of it is real! There doesn't need to be one true version about who saved the Emperor any more than there needs to be one true account about who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents!

 Crimson wrote:
This is not how it works!

The way the Horus Heresy is being written? The way GW is fleshing everything out? It might not have before, but it seems to now.

None of it is real!

It's real in-universe.

There doesn't need to be one true version about who saved the Emperor any more than there needs to be one true account about who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents!

Again, missing the point. In every Batman universe, there is only one true account on who kills Batman's parents. The difference is that there are multiple Batman universes.
There is only one 40k universe. There is a true account of it, because that's how logic works.

Look, you dislike it. That's fine, can't make you like something. But it's simply untrue to say that GW don't have a canon and a storyline with fixed elements in place. Dislike it all your want to. It's still there.

No offense here Crimson, but you're coming off as a bit hysterical. Your logic is kinda circular at this point, since Sgt_Smudge has already repeatedly disproven that the idea there is no canon is factually untrue. I mean consider what you're saying, you're already taking the fact that the Emperor was saved at all was true at face value, but how can you if there is no canon? There's clearly elements in 40K that are relatively immutable, and until there are explicit retcons from GW, these are basically the basis of the canon you so apparently despise. Frankly, what's the appeal of 40K if you can make up whatever you want? Then it's not even grimdark anymore if you can just headcanon that a 40K version of the human Federation from Star Trek comes in swooping to save humanity with new tech that wipes out the Nids, seals off the warp and brokers piece with xenos.

The one consistent 40K universe is your headcanon. You can construct such in your mind by picking and choosing from conflicting facts but that is just your choice. Some other person might do the same but choose differently in those conflict situations and neither if your headcanon would be more correct or less correct.

40K has canon (the lore bublished by GW) it doesn't have one unbroken consistent continuity, so in that sense it is more like these Batman examples.Conflicting accounts of events can and do exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
No offense here Crimson, but you're coming off as a bit hysterical. Your logic is kinda circular at this point, since Sgt_Smudge has already repeatedly disproven that the idea there is no canon is factually untrue. I mean consider what you're saying, you're already taking the fact that the Emperor was saved at all was true at face value, but how can you if there is no canon? There's clearly elements in 40K that are relatively immutable, and until there are explicit retcons from GW, these are basically the basis of the canon you so apparently despise. Frankly, what's the appeal of 40K if you can make up whatever you want? Then it's not even grimdark anymore if you can just headcanon that a 40K version of the human Federation from Star Trek comes in swooping to save humanity with new tech that wipes out the Nids, seals off the warp and brokers piece with xenos.

The canon is the lore published by GW. Thus we know that there are three conflicting accounts of who saved the Emperor. Similarly there are many other canonical facts, known to us because GW published them. And some of those facts conflict. Doesn't mean some of them are not canon. What I am disputing that there is some underlying 'real consistent true setting' under all this. There is not. In one story guardsman saves the Emperor in another it is a Custodian. In third it is a terminator, who is not carrying a multilaser this time, but in another story might. None of these accounts are more true or less true, they all can exist simultanously andbe 'true' just like Batman's varius origins can be all 'true' in the context of the stories they appear.

 Crimson wrote:
The one consistent 40K universe is your headcanon. You can construct such in your mind by picking and choosing from conflicting facts but that is just your choice. Some other person might do the same but choose differently in those conflict situations and neither if your headcanon would be more correct or less correct.

Agreed that neither headcanon is stronger than any other. It's all opinion. However, to say that there isn't a consistent 40k universe with facts, narrative certainties, and events/thoughts/words set in stone is frankly untrue.

Evidence, Gav Thorpe's words when referring to the Black Library submissions. If your argument was true, how could Gav claim "that's not how a Space Marine speaks", or "that's not how the Warp works"? Like it or not, 40k has rules in it's setting. It is written in stone, until GW decide to change that via retcons. These "continuity errors" or multiple consecutive events occurring simultaneously are just things stopping us from seeing the true words written in that stone.

40k has facts. If you want to ignore that, you're free to. That's your headcanon. But arguing headcanon against canon is kinda insulting from a discussion perspective (when the discussion is about actual canon, not "how I wish the lore was")

40K has canon (the lore bublished by GW) it doesn't have one unbroken consistent continuity, so in that sense it is more like these Batman examples.Conflicting accounts of events can and do exist.

So much for "GW has no canon", which you previously espoused?

40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
What I am disputing that there is some underlying 'real consistent true setting' under all this. There is not. In one story guardsman saves the Emperor in another it is a Custodian. In third it is a terminator, who is not carrying a multilaser this time, but in another story might.

And one of those stories may hold the ACTUAL truth of the event.

The stories are canonical. The events of those stories don't have to be. I'm not talking about the story of the Custodian who saved the Emperor. I'm talking about what really happened on the Vengeful Spirit's bridge.

As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!

The event of the Emperor being saved occurs once, and there is a single factual case of it. If the HH books show this scene, that will probably be the canon explanation for what happens there. You don't like it? Off to headcanon.

None of these accounts are more true or less true, they all can exist simultanously andbe 'true' just like Batman's varius origins can be all 'true' in the context of the stories they appear.

But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.

In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.

That's canon.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.

And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!

No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.

But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.

In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.

It is one universe only in your head.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.

And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?

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.

You keep mentioning these "explicit quotes", but ignore other "explicit quotes" that suggest the opposite. What's true? We don't know, but, just like in 40k, there's a nugget of truth somewhere.
Guess someone would have to discuss that and present a rational hypothesis to find it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!

No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.

No they wouldn't.

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

But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.

In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.

It is one universe only in your head.

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?

You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.

*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.

And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!

No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.

But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.

In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.

It is one universe only in your head.

I can say that the Emperor is magical toaster that farts rainbows, and you cannot disprove because there is no canon. Don't use that argument.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.

And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?

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.

You keep mentioning these "explicit quotes", but ignore other "explicit quotes" that suggest the opposite. What's true? We don't know, but, just like in 40k, there's a nugget of truth somewhere.
Guess someone would have to discuss that and present a rational hypothesis to find it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!

No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.

No they wouldn't.

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

But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.

In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.

It is one universe only in your head.

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?

You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.

*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.

Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here

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.

They can be third person but not third person omniscient.

 Grimskul wrote:
Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here

"From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
"Then you are... correct? I guess there's no canon any more, so I guess I can't say you're wrong?"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here

"From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
"Then you are... correct? I guess there's no canon any more, so I guess I can't say you're wrong?"

The ending to RoTS everyone asked for. When there is no canon, there is no high ground!

tneva82 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. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

If that's so absurd how come those things exists?-)

And of course we have the authors themselves saying it's not absolute truth. But yeah I'm sure you know better what's reliable and what's not than the person writing the books in question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It does have something to do with the format. Third person omniscient writes from all perspectives, even non protagonists thoughts, feelings and opinions are known to the narration, so are all situations and circumstances. Are you really suggesting that, In Horus Rising everyone's perspective is right except for Horus' or everyone's perspective is wrong except for Loken. Its just stupid, unless you actually have an ex-machina at the end stating yeah he actually thought this, but still whats the point, if Horus was wrong, what was he wrong in, was everything he said thought and felt wrong and didn't happen, or specific things. Why you would think that, when there is absolutely nothing suggesting that. its 'what is the meaning of the book' gone crazy. I can't even begin to understand that. as for opinions and feelings being incorrect, yeah that isn't being brought into question, opinions and belief are by definition fallible, but if the character knows their folly a narrator makes it known, Otherwise its up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong. But if the narration makes a factual claim; its a factual claim. A narration in third person omniscient is omniscient. Does the writer know 3 quarters of everything that happens and 1 quarter, they only have a good idea, I mean how do you work out what to take for granted and what not to, even when its written from an omniscient format. I don't know how you can accept factual claims by the narrator you like and chop up those you don't or that don't agree with you to, ah its implicit. Plus when you take into account that other writers carry on writing the same characters, with the same beliefs and opinions and personality with new ones based on that same existing characters personality etc. it becomes even more bizarre for me to understand that.

1st, 2nd, 3rd person. They can all be unreliable narrators. It's common enough trick in books to have unreliable narrators even in 2nd/3rd persons.

What you's don't understand is that, the writers say that because its an overarching series where there are so many writers and novels, that not all the writers have; read, or even remembers everything they've read. But a third person omniscient novel is 'omniscient' there is no interpretation to third person omniscient, by definition or by action. The narration knows every thought, feeling and belief in the story, every situation... its omniscient, if you are trying to be 'creative' you could say or imply at the end that none of this happened, or it was a dream, but to do that you would have to imply it, or state it. This is what annoys me, you say its unreliable, or that its to be taking implicitly and interpreted from a default position, even though the novel does not show that in anyway. If you show me a quote where it makes one BL novel call into question the validity of the novels story and the perspectives of the character. Even implying it. I'd agree with you, but instead of using real examples, where it shows this, you's are just in the default, eh none of its true. That is totally absurd.

 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.'

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?)

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.

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.

*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?

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.

In summary, again.

There are certain tenets in 40k that are definite. Things like ORKS, eldar and marines. Basic history like the heresey happens. The fall happened. All in there.

Now we have multiple sources telling stories around those “facts” for want of a better word. The publisher, writers and editors of these books and the company that owns the copyright all say don’t take everything at face value. Things may not be as they seem and expect contradictions.

But according to some those people are doing it wrong. Interpreting their own work incorrectly. And these people on the internet who are in no way associated with the firm producing this material are the only ones doing it right.

What I think would solve it would be if there was a separate forum for the discussion of the black library HH series. This I have noticed is the main issue. Some love those books and take them as gospel. Here we should be allowed to discuss all aspects of the background and all theories about it. Free from being told we are doing wrong and are only saying what the authors say because we have lost some debate about the facts in a fictional setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

With the warp stuff that’s entirely plausible and I like it. But be prepared to be told U are wrong and having a chunk of text quoted to you to “prove” it.

Andykp wrote:
In summary, again.

There are certain tenets in 40k that are definite. Things like ORKS, eldar and marines. Basic history like the heresey happens. The fall happened. All in there.

Now we have multiple sources telling stories around those “facts” for want of a better word. The publisher, writers and editors of these books and the company that owns the copyright all say don’t take everything at face value. Things may not be as they seem and expect contradictions.

But according to some those people are doing it wrong. Interpreting their own work incorrectly. And these people on the internet who are in no way associated with the firm producing this material are the only ones doing it right.

What I think would solve it would be if there was a separate forum for the discussion of the black library HH series. This I have noticed is the main issue. Some love those books and take them as gospel. Here we should be allowed to discuss all aspects of the background and all theories about it. Free from being told we are doing wrong and are only saying what the authors say because we have lost some debate about the facts in a fictional setting.

Yeah, good summary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

It is actually an interesting theory that the conflicting realities do not only exist as fiction on narrative sense, but as parallel realities in the setting itself as metaphysical sense. I think I like this.