Chaeron Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Are we sure Laurie's comments were meant to be taken literally? Seems somewhat bizarre we're taking another person's opinion (albeit, editor) when it could be interpreted in innumerable ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 That's kind of the point. Fulgrim doesn't need to be directly involved to force Fabius more underground. All he has to do is start looking into the rumor and the presure from that would force Fabius' hand. Or as Cormic pointed out it doesn't even need to be as sinister as Fabius' actions. It could be some practice amonst the 3rd to modify themselves in a way to appear more perfect. Like how Samurai would wear makeup. Not in the sence of looking more perfect but as in a modification of how they look to be a more ideal image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Are we sure Laurie's comments were meant to be taken literally? Seems somewhat bizarre we're taking another person's opinion (albeit, editor) when it could be interpreted in innumerable ways. "It's not a mistake. It's a nudge-nudge-wink-wink joke. Enjoy it for what it is!" This, by the editor, accompanied with a disclaimer that it is the canonical answer. Nope, we are taking it as literally as it seems to have been meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kais Klip Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 As much as I hate playing the tender little snowflake liberal persona with a look-at-me-I'm-so-hip-and-progressive attitude, I really don't see the issue: 1) Without resorting to using the Slaneesh card, primarch sexuality has not been touched upon either way, so we can't say a gay joke (it's not even that, it's an ass joke) goes against the established grain simply for the merits of its orientation. Just to be more pedantic and hip, I wouldn't be surprised anyway, given the... tendencies of classical warrior cultures. 2) The issue shouldn't be any more disconcerting than repeated galactic genocide, because at the end if the day it falls inline with the thematic arcs of the novel and is not in any way an oddity. It is remarked that a) Fulgrim is a vain creature who lives for his ostentation, he is B) a "peacock" and c) has tutoring time with his men, who exemplify biological perfection. All three events/remarks support one another from a standpoint of conveying an idea (Fulgrim is a metrosexual, bordering on herbivore badass with the highest kin killcount while still looking fabulous) to the reader. So really, this incident goes neither against the grain of the novel nor the wider thematic setting the novel occupies, rather actually contributing towards their solidification. The only possible issue arises from a personal moral stand point one occupies, in which case you can keep it to yourself since this is a fictional setting which should have little inline with your morals if you truly are such an upstanding champion of citizen virtue. There. Now someone pass me a ladder so I can get down from this moral high ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I don't really see any of that applying to this current situation of a prepubescant-minded Khan snickering at Fulgrim being rumored as having homoerotic relations with his sons. You aren't wrong, it's just not exactly applicable. And to make it clear, I don't have issue about it being a gay joke. I have issue with Primarchs acting like children who get riled up by yo mama jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Cormic is right. In that there is no problem with it being a gay joke. It is the fact that it being a gay joke does not really fit the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kais Klip Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I thought we were rationalising many pivotal actions of the setting performed by the Primarchs exactly because they had immature personalities. Either way, anal jokes are rife amongst the every social class throughout our entire linguistic history. Let me know if we're straying into opinions here, but the response is perfectly apt for the setting. Wraight is fine to write it, whether the Khan is right to say it is a different matter. Edit: I mean to say that surely throwing a system-burning tantrum is no less immature than a what-what-in-your-butt joke amongst close kin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 The Chogorians have been shown to be straight talkers. Saying things as they see it. So we have a conversation that looks like: Fulgrim - I hear you modify your ships. (True) Khan - I hear you modify your warriors. (Maybe true depending on when certain "Things" started happening) vs Fulgrim - I hear you modify your ships. (True) Khan - I hear you're gay with your warriors. (???) For some Primarchs the gay one sounds fine. However when the Khan is saying it in defence of a true rumor said about him. It just sounds wrong. For example: Fulgrim - I hear some of your warrior turn into monsters. (true) Russ - I hear you're gay with your warriors. Fulgrim - I hear you hammer pain engines into your warrior's head to make them crazy. (true) Angron - Fag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kais Klip Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I'm not sure if the latter points agree with your former one, if they do I completely agree. Again, the intonation, meaning and effect completely fits in line for me, considering it is aimed at Fulgrim. Now I too would be up in arms if Guilliman went "fag", but the way it was written it stands as a solid retort by the Khan based on what we know about Fulgrim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 It sounds like less of a solid retort and more something that wouldn't have been out of place in a school cafeteria with other child-minded Primarchs chanting "Fight! Fight! Fight!" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I'm not sure if the latter points agree with your former one, if they do I completely agree. Again, the intonation, meaning and effect completely fits in line for me, considering it is aimed at Fulgrim. Now I too would be up in arms if Guilliman went "fag", but the way it was written it stands as a solid retort by the Khan based on what we know about Fulgrim. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. My problem lies with the statement being a gay jokes does not fit the context of the conversation. As in the Khan calling Fulgrim gay at that point in the conversation does not jive with how the Khan is represented in the current fluff. Reguardless of who says what in hindsight/inside knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kais Klip Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Again, I would be upset as well if a 'gay' comment would be delivered so crassly. However the phrasing and delivery of his retort is key; Guilliman can throw our slurs all he likes as long as he articulates it in a nature that suits him. For me, Khan's reply seemed crass and irritable, but well within his character given he has little respect for the 'peacock' who questioned his bladework in the manner that he did. Besides, I didn't even understand that line as a gay joke, but a remark on the III somewhat frowned upon practises that to my mind have never been mentioned in detail. "Things you do to your warriors" as a line isn't even a homophobic remark primarily, but rather a criticism of questionable deeds, be they martial (Angron) or unconventional. Bottom line for me is; it can barely be called a 'gay' retort, but even if it were it was delivered in an apt enough way and within an apt enough context for me to even have a thought for it. The Khan wasn't looking to banter or verbally spar; he called Fulgrim out on his :cuss in the crassest way possible to shut him the hell up. We all know people who respond to baiting like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 ‘He wants to be left alone,’ said Fulgrim. ‘To shoot off into the stars and hunt down xenos on those delightful jetbikes. They’re devilishly fast. I heard from a contact on Mars, Jaghatai, that you do strange things to your ships.’ The Khan shot him a heavy-lidded stare. ‘I heard you do strange things to your warriors.’ Did you really read that and think "He just called Fulgrim gay"??? i know I didn't when I first saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 On its own, it can be barely called a gay retort. You are right on that, and if you have read the previous posts in this thread, you will know that most have said the same thing. But it is a gay retort, because the editor took the time to tell us that it has nothing to do with anything else but as a gay retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kais Klip Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I just realised we are in complete agreement. Uh, torches and pitchforks down I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 It is far more of a potential continuity issue and Mr Goulding just wanted to nip it in the bud. The gay joke doesn't really fit. I dislike quoting myself but I was addressing what the Editor said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaeron Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 But it is a gay retort, because the editor took the time to tell us that it has nothing to do with anything else but as a gay retort. "In the opinion of the editor". Death of the Author and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Its a rare day I agree 100% with StoneRhino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonerhino Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You know you like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 But it is a gay retort, because the editor took the time to tell us that it has nothing to do with anything else but as a gay retort. "In the opinion of the editor". Death of the Author and all that. Seems more as in "coming from the guy who spoke with the author and was involved in the writing process" kind of thing than a "I'm sure he just meant it like this" kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 That's pure supposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Not really. Read the post it was said in. It is linked in this thread. It isn't given as the editor's opinion. It is given as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Nonono. You were presenting your opinion as a fact. That's what I was commenting on. I've seen Golding's quote. Guess what? Golding didn't write the book, so his (her? Laurie's a girl's name 'round these parts. . .) opinion on the matter bears no weight so far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Eremon Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I was stating my opinion of not liking the gay joke as fact (that I did not like the gay joke)? But I am not sure how you can take an editor outright saying that this is the canonical answer, using his (I do believe it is 'his') own words, so we should all stop speculating on what else it might have been, as his opinion of the work as a reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Regarding Fabius's experiments on the III, we actually do know when they began: After the laer campaign. Check pages 71-73 of Fulgrim. As far as the other goes: As written in Scars, the Khan is supposed to be this philosophical steppe nomad conqueror whose savage exterior hides a sage's wisedom. Except for that one scene he's suddenly a boozed up frat boy. My distaste does not stem from "Ermagawd! Teh ghey!"; it's because the protagonist has suddenly swapped his script for "The Horus Heresy" with "Pretty Teenagers Being Stupid, Coming This Summer On CW" and he's trying to drag Sanguinus, Fulgrim, and Mortarion out of character with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.