Which traitors do we hate the mostest?

[AustonT]

It is the account of a shareholder at the 2008? Shareholders meeting. The article it comes from is expansive and nothing else is blatantly untrue, maybe a corporate policy or two that changed, and were announced as changes.

It's a paraphrase of whatever George did say, I put George Mann in the quote header because it is attributed to him by a primary source. I could have dumped off the first three words and similar references to the actual authorship, but that'd be dishonest.

The bolded part specifies what are canon sources, the last only says BL isn't. I thought the former was more important.

 

Gav Thorpe and ADB have alluded to the canon nature of the BL books. The problem I have with that is, they are authors not representatives of GW. They could easily go the way of CS Goto. ADB claims they are canon, Gav tries to say they are unless they aren't. GW has been careful not to Officially address canon, so they can ignore retconning and unintentional contradictions. But George Mann is responsible for selling books as a recruitment tool, not retaining the authenticity of those stories in the current studio sources. Kind of like how Relic calls thier games and alternative universe.

[Captain Semper]

It is the account of a shareholder at the 2008? Shareholders meeting. The article it comes from is expansive and nothing else is blatantly untrue, maybe a corporate policy or two that changed, and were announced as changes.

It's a paraphrase of whatever George did say, I put George Mann in the quote header because it is attributed to him by a primary source. I could have dumped off the first three words and similar references to the actual authorship, but that'd be dishonest.

The bolded part specifies what are canon sources, the last only says BL isn't. I thought the former was more important.

 

That's cool. As I said I do not dispute the content.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

I like to think of that quote a little differently, the only thing that is 'official' cannon is the codexs BUT it makes it very clear that everyone will read and interpret things differently from one another. Isnt that a good enough sign that we SHOULD be reading interpreting and twisting the fluff to our devices? Arent we as gamers responsible enough to make up a wicked cool story for ourselves? In a game where Propaganda twinges every iota of fluff who is to say what is real? This is a universe of greys and just because some squad of marines somewhere in the universe has heard one thing doesn't mean that some squad somewhere else hasnt heard the exact opposite!

[AustonT]

You are pretty much supposed to twist the fluff to your devises. Citing the BL books as canon however is folly. Basically because of Goto and Swallow but every author has a :cuss moment.

[Captain Semper]

You are pretty much supposed to twist the fluff to your devises. Citing the BL books as canon however is folly. Basically because of Goto and Swallow but every author has a :D moment.

 

As do the Studio chaps... I think you might find the following interesting (it's from a thread in Amicus that's titled: "Canon?" which discusses pretty much what we discuss here).

 

 

I'll just continue to adhere to the last hierarchy of canon that they gave us. It still makes the most sense.

*Citation needed.

 

Please. :) There're been a few requests for this over the past few canon-debate threads and nobody has yet delivered.

 

I've never seen it, either. I've seen a few misunderstandings of quotes (and direct misquotes) but GW's approach to canon basically seems to remain the same. I used to believe the mythical hierarchy myself (as a fan), until I was told by several people in GW that it was nonsense. That's kind of the point, really. GW never seem to explicitly talk about canon to the fandom, and the few times someone has (such as Marc Gascoigne or George Mann) they get wiiiiildly misquoted and misunderstood.

[AustonT]

I've seen it before, but it's worth answering. BTW I wrote and then deleted a bit about studio authors being just as guilty. Also RT is vastly different than the current fluff so there's plenty of argument against studio work in the past.

 

Most of the people who defend BL books as canon like a dog with a bone have something to prove. A line in a book or the whole story that they vehemently believe should be and therefor must be canon. People who argue against it generally are the exact opposite there is something in the books they believe shouldn't be and therefor must not be canon. Just like politics there's wiggle room.

Here's my deal. The 2008 shareholders meeting quote from George Mann is from a reputable author, and probably the most telling: it's just a blurb in an overall report. Just like I read the newspaper it's not all word for word, but the journalists isn't a blatant partisan. Whole link below if you care. A lot of the distribution, store policy, and web policy has come to pass and were confirmed by other sources and time; so I have little doubt as to the veracity of the BL portion.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218542.page

 

I could go through the trouble of trotting out quotes from Gav Thorpe, ADB, Gascoigne. But it's all been argued a thousand times. The specific quote you had said that Gascoigne was misquoted. I doubt it. He basically said what every BLphile wants to hear, it's all canon. Thorpe, ADB, and Mann all basically have the same thing to say. The BL is cool but there's no pressure to include BL stuff on other BL works, let alone studio material.

 

So that's the background. Here's where I come from:

The BL stuff is cool to read, it really fleshes out the world we love so much. To accept it as canon I have to a accept backflipping terminators, multilaser toting SMs, lasguns that knock out dreadnoughts, and I remember som Eldar nonsense. To accept studio materials as canon I have to accept that updates will happen, and I may not like them. The latest edition is the correct one, and Mat Ward is still employed by GW.

BL books aren't updated so if they contradict the current fluff they lose everytime. BL books are entertainment, if you get your news from the Onion they can be canon. If you are pulling names, or a fluffy army list from the books awesome. But when the books make unequivocal changes to the canon material and how it functions (battle for the fang only fenrisians can be SW), or just pure nonsense ( really Fabius Bile on Baal and NONE of the psychers or Corbulo and his far seeing eye noticed?). Feel free to discard it. It doesn't have to mutually exclusive, but you just can't run out BL as canon.