Death of the Author and Black Library

[Marshal Rohr]

Creating this topic since the other posts got removed.

 

From my understanding, DotA is a postmodernist literary and theoretical critique to provide a lens to understand theories and works written in a time when prevailing views don't align with our modern sensibilities, and I'll leave examples out to avoid hot topics, so let's keep this relevent to Black Library specifically.

 

Black Library, producing licensed content for a fictional universe, isn't exactly a publisher I would think this applies to. The point of BL fiction is to expand on the lore of the table top game, which is ultimately a vehicle to sell models. It's not allegory or social commentary, so I don't see why this term even applies to the setting at all.

 

So what are the arguments for it actually applying?

[helterskelter]

Legion numbers in the early editions of the first heresy books being subsequently retconned in newer editions?

[Marshal Rohr]

That's why I don't feel like DotA is really applicable, because a retcon isn't a bias to ignored to understand the meaning of the message beneath. Is there another definition I am missing?

[Kelborn]

This seems to be interesting but I don't understand what this is all about. :/

 

Marshall Rohr, could you give me an example via pm so that I'll might be able to comment on this?

[Xisor]

I think it's pretty blatant. In modern discourse you've also got the pithy line "intent isn't magic". If you're not overtly racist and intending racism, you might still write pretty shocking stuff, inadvertently.

To that end, the author might *intend* one thing, but the fiction that's actually published is all we have to go on. Like Rowling/Dumbledore/gay, an author saying 'I meant this' is only worth a small amount next to what's on the page, and how the audience react.

In modernity (again Rowling/Dumbledore/gay), the author can also enter into dialogue and discourse on this ('authors back from the dead!?') and thereby actually influence the reception quickly, by clarifying or exacerbating any given thing. And also big, communal projects like the Black Library in general are pretty novel (ho ho) these last few decades, so the concept of canon starts to play a role. (How does the gestalt have a life independent of its creators and its component parts?)

Which is all pretty neat. It's something I love thinking about, and discussing, and it's great when folks get the nuance of it.

But rigid arguments like 'this is factual, so I'm not listening' or 'but that's not what's written in Book B738-c, ergo you're an idiot' bring me some dismay. More discussion, not less!

[Kelborn]

Ok,

 

So if I'm saying that Kyme wrote a certain thing and the audition interprets it differently and he leaves them alone with their assumption, we're talking about a "death of the author"?

 

And ADB would be an example from an author rising from the dead as he is interacting heavily with the community, correct?

[Biscuittzz]

I think the line between 'Story' and 'Setting' is very blurred in this universe's context and is where many people go wrong. A story is generally quite factual wherein facts and statements of events are told. A setting, which IMO 30k and 40k are, leaves a lot open for discussion and arguing among the audience and is just giving Black Library's view of events. They don't exactly have to be the true extent of what happened.  

 

As Xisor said anything that leads to more discussion is always welcome. 

[Legatus]

Well, the "Death of the Author" concept essentially says that the intent of the author (or creator of any other work) and what he was trying to convey are irrelevant, and it only matters how a consumer receives and interprets the work.

 

In the context of any written material for 40K, the reader will probably have previously read a lot about the 40K universe and have a large construct of said universe in his head. So wenn reading new material, he will interpret it acording to how this relates and fits into his existing understanding of 40K. So on the one hand this means that the reader may not interpret the new material exactly as the author may have wanted. And on the other hand it means that two people who have a different perception of the 40K universe will interpret it differently, regardless of what the author meant to convey.

 

As an example, in 'Imperial Armour Volume 10' Forgeworld presents background for the Minotaurs Chapter, and describes how they appear to have secret ties to the High Lords of Terra and act as the High Lords' personal enforcers. What the author probably meant to convey here is that "the Minotraurs are of special importance among the Space Marine Chapters".

 

However, since I happen to know what the High Lords of Terra actually are the description makes no sense to me and does not integrate at all into the 40K lore, so when reading that description my interpretation is "the Minotaurs description doesn't fit into the established 40K background, and thus are of no real importance to the lore". Not exactly what the author wanted to achieve.

 

In a different example, the Black Library retcons of the Ultramarines Legion working to create their own empire can be interpreted differently by the reader, depending on his perception of the Ultramarines. If the Reader thinks of the Ultramarines as a force for good, he will interpret their described activities as "they are achieving something positive by creating a stable empire". If the reader does not like the Legion very much, he will interpret their activities as "while the other Legions conquer worlds for the Emperor, the selfish Ultramarines think of their own benefit". And me, I am thinking "why the hell is Black Library doing this ot me?" (Cue tasteless "Death of the Author" joke.) So here, at least one of the readers above does not receive the material as the author probably intended, so his intention is irrelevant for how the reader interprets it.

 

If we rejected the "Death of the Author" idea, then every time we interpret new 40K material we would have to ask what exactly it was that the author wanted to convey with the material. So there essentially would be one correct interpretation. Though on occasion, and that is especially often the case in 40K, the author will be intentionally vague. So there could be different interpretations possible even with author's intent considered. On the other hand, if we interpret the new material mainly according to how it fits into the greater 40K background construct, then perhaps what the author wanted to achieve in this newest work is not that important. Perhaps he "failed" to convey what he wanted to (as with the Minotaurs), and whatever he intended for it is then ignored as well.

 

Personally, I very often try to second guess the intent of the authors of the newer 40K material, though not necessarily in terms of the meaning of the text and how the new material fits into the previous lore, but more on a meta level, why they felt the need to change it. Or whether it was even a conscious change or just a slip up. Though I don't think this falls under "author's intent" for the purpose of interpreting their work.

 

An example of considering the author's intent is the nature of Chaos. In a lot of sources the Chaos Gods are described as explicitly vile, malignant, evil entities. But there are a few other sources that suggest that they are more "forces of nature" or that they have a more dual nature, some good qualities as well (Khorne is honour, Slaanesh is aspiration, Nurgle is caring, etc.). So here we seem to have two contrary descriptions, and when forming our understanding of what Chaos is we have to ignore the intention of one of these authors. On the other hand, perhaps the descriptions of "positive" Chaos traits are meant to demonstrare how mortals could fall for lies and misdirection. E.g. the old Liber Chaotica was in large parts presented as the "in-universe" treatises of of a scholar investigating Chaos, so the descriptions of "positive" Chaos were perhaps not meant to be taken literally, but as an example how an in-universe character might see them.

But then again, coming back to the "Death of the Author" concept, even though it might have been intended as an in-universe perspective and not as "factual", a lot of readers have interpreted it as such. The readers got a different interpretation than what was intended, so the author's intent did not matter.

 

In 'Angels of Darkness' Gavin Thorpe did not intend to reveal that Jonson was a traitor. He just wanted to throw in a little head-turner. Readers with extensive knowledge of the lore and how the Dark Angels and Space Wolves both raced to Terra should have been aware that the accusations by the Fallen Dark Angel in the book were baseless and subjective, but a lot of readers instead took it completely at face value. The author's intent did not matter.

 

In 'The First Heretic' Aaron Dembski-Bowden did not intend to reveal that the Ultramarines Legion had absorbed the two missing Legions. Again it was just a small rumour, baseless and subjective, but again readers took it at face value, even though knowledge of the lore and the Ultramarines' growth would have dispelled it.

 

So, on the one hand readers will very often interpret Black Library material according to their own understanding, and not how the author intended. (So Death of the Author.) On the other hand, clarifications by the author or later added afterwords are allways welcome, and are then gladly referenced in the discussions of their material. (So no Death of the Author.)

 

 

Sorry, the post is perhaps a bit unstructured. Examples were popping into my head as I was writing along.

[Kelborn]

Don't worry, Legatus.

 

It wasn't unstructured. I was able to follow your thoughts and thanks to you, I'm now able to follow this discussion.

 

Thanks for your great clarification! Appreciate it very much. :tu:

[Roomsky]

Well, Legatus saved me a lot of writing.

 

If you want examples, another would be in the climax of Betrayer. ADB wanted the felling of the Imperator titan to buck the trend of them going down easily in other books by having it destroyed in a novel way (invasion) and by emphasising how much a minor screw-up would mean the death of them all. Several readers, by contrast, focused less on how it was happening, and more on what was happening, and reacted somewhat negatively because once again, an Imperator was destroyed with (seemingly) little application of force.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think I saw something like this pop up about the Star Wars prequels once, but that author called it the era of audience participation. I think Black Library has a much stronger argument when laying down what is happening than a one off science fiction author published indentently. 40k encourages players to build their own backgrounds but draws a distinct line where headcanon stops and true canon begins. That's why something as simple as the emperor treating the Primarchs as weapons may make me personally unhappy, but it doesn't matter if I don't like it because there is a definititive arch being expanded. So people who don't like the idea that Black Library can say chaos is ascendency can dislike it all they want, but it's totally irrelevant to underlying arch of the setting.

[mc warhammer]

DotA originally applied to critiques that tended to use psychoanalysis and biographical knowledge of the author to interpret the work. For example, ADB's gender, nationality, hobbies, sexual preferences and perversions and what not would be the lens to view his work through.

 

DotA challenged that, saying it wasn't important and that the work existed as an entirely seperate thing. Marshal Rohr is right that it's gone on to be used in queer theory etc but the way it tends to get used on the internet these days is just a vague "well my interpretation, no matter how wild or contrary, is more valid because...DotA"

 

there have been a few literary theorists who outright reject the concept and argue that the author is present and wholly responsible for the entire multitude of interpretations their work engages.

 

i think i've used this example here before:

 

3 men see a sign written on the side of an escalator "dogs must be carried on the escalator"

 

man 1 reads and thinks "if i bring a dog up this escalator, then i am required to carry him"

 

man 2 reads and thinks "in order to ride this escalator i am required to first find a dog and carry him"

 

man 3 reads and thinks "how wonderful. this is an ode to the relationship between man and best friend"

 

postmodernism posits that all three interpretations are equally valid. personally, i can see where they're coming from but man 1 is also justified in thinking man 2 and 3 are idiots and most likely figments of a pomo theorist's imagination.

[Teetengee]

In short, I would argue that if you think Death of the Author applies ever to anything, then it applies to everything just as well, that includes the black library stuff. I tend to fall in the camp that completely ignoring author intent is perhaps unwise, and letting it influence your interpretation is not altogether a problem. However, the concept that any work can be evaluated independently of whatever the author may have said or done, seems pretty hard to argue.

[A D-B]

Death of the Author applies to a much wider angle than just intent, when it comes to literary criticism, but in this context it's being pared down to authorial intent, so we'll stick with that.

 

I think the author's intent is irrelevant. But I also think (indeed, all of us are well aware) that some interpretations are just dead wrong. That's crucial, here. Not all interpretations are equally valid, or have as much evidence as each other.

 

You don't need to know or acknowledge the author's intent. It's a curiosity at best. But you also need to be aware that in this day and age of memes and frothing internet discussion, any one of us can likely name a plethora of examples across various fandoms and sports where someone is championing various opinions that are objectively wrong, or subjectively nonsensical.

 

Legatus's example about the Ultramarines is a great one. I didn't intend people to genuinely think that the Ultramarines absorbed the Lost Legions, and I was (and still am!) surprised anyone would think it was 100% true, given what we know of the lore; the famous company approach to the Lost Legions; and so on. But that's because I have my perspective on it, and I still get why people believe it with their differing perspectives. I don't mind at all that some people do believe it, because the point is that despite even the characters themselves not agreeing with the one that says it, it's still at least remotely plausible in context. It's not true, it wasn't my intention to present it as truth, but it's possible in the context of the setting. The real crux here is that the overwhelming majority of people don't believe it, and never did. 

 

"Death of the Author" isn't the Get Out of Jail Free card that some folks like to consider it, as MC Warhammer points out. Author intentions may not matter, but if 98% of people see X in the text, maybe the 2% seeing Y aren't enlightened and getting it right, after all. This also strays into "The author thinks X" and "The author is biased against Y" territory, where people apply those in overwhelming force across genre fandoms, almost always with no actual basis and even less evidence, but as the ultimate soundbites to cast doubt and fit in with meme culture snapshot arguments on forums and social media. The author's intent is irrelevant, but the flip side of the coin that it's often applied on such endlessly spurious ground against said author. Star War and Star Trek fandom is littered with the fallout of this, and 40K has its share of it around pretty much every single author I can think of, too.

[A D-B]

That's why I don't feel like DotA is really applicable, because a retcon isn't a bias to ignored to understand the meaning of the message beneath. Is there another definition I am missing?

 

That's a very good point, too. The problem is that the line is so fluid that it's difficult to see where it could ever be drawn. I've read some authors' stuff that I disagree with in terms of interpretation, and others whose stuff is objectively wrong in terms of the IP (with discussions had behind closed doors to that effect, especially when it then takes off as popular and people are left wondering what to do in terms of future stuff on the same subject). But there are just as many where I've thought "This is freaking waaaayyyy out there..." only to discover it's a policy shift, or a "correction" of showing the IP in a light where I'd previously thought it worked like X because of Book X, only to learn that was considered a problematic presentation in-house.

[Jareddm]

While I can't offer a great deal of insight compared to what's been stated above, I just thought I'd add this rather cynical little principle I came up with a few years back about how the 40k community seems to react online.

 

"When a new piece of lore comes out, if there is any ambiguity, the correct interpretation is always the one that will offend the community the most."

 

 

I call it the Kaldor Draigo Principle

 

[b1soul]

Legatus's example about the Ultramarines is a great one. I didn't intend people to genuinely think that the Ultramarines absorbed the Lost Legions, and I was (and still am!) surprised anyone would think it was 100% true, given what we know of the lore; the famous company approach to the Lost Legions; and so on.

Based on the way you worded it, it's just an in-universe rumour...maybe almost a joke...but perhaps with some substance behind it...or perhaps not

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

That's why I don't feel like DotA is really applicable, because a retcon isn't a bias to ignored to understand the meaning of the message beneath. Is there another definition I am missing?

That's a very good point, too. The problem is that the line is so fluid that it's difficult to see where it could ever be drawn. I've read some authors' stuff that I disagree with in terms of interpretation, and others whose stuff is objectively wrong in terms of the IP (with discussions had behind closed doors to that effect, especially when it then takes off as popular and people are left wondering what to do in terms of future stuff on the same subject). But there are just as many where I've thought "This is freaking waaaayyyy out there..." only to discover it's a policy shift, or a "correction" of showing the IP in a light where I'd previously thought it worked like X because of Book X, only to learn that was considered a problematic presentation in-house.

Your examples are exactly what I think is happening when people invoke this. To use Legs example as Ultramarines as empire builders, the old, incomplete picture just had the eight systems, and they kept that after the codex. The expansion of Ultramar into a massive five hundred world empire, and Guilliman training his legion to be governors was new in the sense that it was never mentioned previously, and a retcon in the sense that 8 became 500. The view that they build empires is how readers process the new information using their interpretation of Imperium Secundus to be evidence. The underlying arch of the narrative doesn't support IS as a new empire, or a power grab by Guilliman, but an act of preservation. The indivdual reader may interpret it as a power play, but the objective fact of the narrative is that it wasn't and because the objective fact of the narrative doesn't support the reader bias against the ultramarines they invoke the DotA.

 

Or at least that's my understanding of this phenomenon.

 

Personally my take on this is that because of the participatory nature of the setting, it's fun to discuss stuff or it's ok to dislike new information and retcons (like it would be fine to talk about whether Vader has any good in him right after ESB before RotJ was released). The problem arises from readers saying that their preferences for alternate takes supersede the objective narrative because older versions of imperfect information are more preferable and the 'new authors' are arbitrarily changing things. For instance, my own preference for older Templar lore or Legs preference for older Ultras lore doesn't mean our views on newer lore have an equal weight in discussions about the newest iterations of novels and stories, but we have solid arguments to why it was better.

 

Ive seen it elsewhere in discussion about the Star Wars EU and Disney retcons but I don't think that's a great example.

[A D-B]

 

 

That's why I don't feel like DotA is really applicable, because a retcon isn't a bias to ignored to understand the meaning of the message beneath. Is there another definition I am missing?

That's a very good point, too. The problem is that the line is so fluid that it's difficult to see where it could ever be drawn. I've read some authors' stuff that I disagree with in terms of interpretation, and others whose stuff is objectively wrong in terms of the IP (with discussions had behind closed doors to that effect, especially when it then takes off as popular and people are left wondering what to do in terms of future stuff on the same subject). But there are just as many where I've thought "This is freaking waaaayyyy out there..." only to discover it's a policy shift, or a "correction" of showing the IP in a light where I'd previously thought it worked like X because of Book X, only to learn that was considered a problematic presentation in-house.

Your examples are exactly what I think is happening when people invoke this. To use Legs example as Ultramarines as empire builders, the old, incomplete picture just had the eight systems, and they kept that after the codex. The expansion of Ultramar into a massive five hundred world empire, and Guilliman training his legion to be governors was new in the sense that it was never mentioned previously, and a retcon in the sense that 8 became 500. The view that they build empires is how readers process the new information using their interpretation of Imperium Secundus to be evidence. The underlying arch of the narrative doesn't support IS as a new empire, or a power grab by Guilliman, but an act of preservation. The indivdual reader may interpret it as a power play, but the objective fact of the narrative is that it wasn't and because the objective fact of the narrative doesn't support the reader bias against the ultramarines they invoke the DotA.

 

Or at least that's my understanding of this phenomenon.

 

Personally my take on this is that because of the participatory nature of the setting, it's fun to discuss stuff or it's ok to dislike new information and retcons (like it would be fine to talk about whether Vader has any good in him right after ESB before RotJ was released). The problem arises from readers saying that their preferences for alternate takes supersede the objective narrative because older versions of imperfect information are more preferable and the 'new authors' are arbitrarily changing things. For instance, my own preference for older Templar lore or Legs preference for older Ultras lore doesn't mean our views on newer lore have an equal weight in discussions about the newest iterations of novels and stories, but we have solid arguments to why it was better.

 

Ive seen it elsewhere in discussion about the Star Wars EU and Disney retcons but I don't think that's a great example.

 

All very good and righteous points. And Laurie summed up an aspect of it very well before:

 

LaurieJGoulding, on 14 Dec 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

Most of the misconceptions about Warhammer (in all of the franchises) come from someone missing the nuance in a text, and taking it the wrong way. They state their opinion as fact, and others then believe it without checking.

 

 

Another interesting angle in this is that some authors might consider a project to try and rehabilitate that element of the lore in line with the IP's arguable intention (and, indeed, their understanding of said aspect of the IP) rather than previous interpretations (Hello, the Black Legion Series!) while others might take on a "changed" aspect of the IP and try to see what they can do with it: i.e. the Black Templars.

 

Like, I was venomously against the changes to the Black Templars, but damn me if I don't look at them all and think "I really, really want to see what I can do with this new angle. I can make myself like this. I can find a story inside it."

 

(Don't get me wrong, some authors say "Whatever, give me something to write and pay me." I don't think there's any more or less integrity in any particular approach. One of the most hilariously mercenary authors I know also knows the lore damn well, and writes bloody great, too. He just tends not to care what he's writing, and aims for big paydays rather than passion projects.)

 

Wheels within wheels!

[b1soul]

I appreciate some good rehabilitation efforts

[Kelborn]

Why do I have a certain feeling which mercenary author you're talking about, Aaron? ;)

 

So we all could agree to disagree in some points, right?

 

But that's the thing, multiple views on certain events may bring revelation to some. And that's good.

And I agree that with you, Aaron. The authors intent is not important. He wrote about a certain theme and gave it to the community to enjoy.

 

Did he had the intention to create discussions like the "fate of mankind" one which pops up everywhere on this forum because of TMOM? No, he certainly didn't. Does it matter what he intended? For the majority, no.

 

It is written "lore" now. Either you can live with that or you don't. Either you like the Hobbit trilogy or you don't. Love it or hate it. But don't think that authors are greedy little bastards sitting in their little, spooky chambers, giggling about how they could tease us with new stuff, saying "just as planned".

 

They are humans themselves, believe it or not. They are allowed to have their own pov on the setting, right? :)

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Bonestomper]

Creating this topic since the other posts got removed.

 

From my understanding, DotA is a postmodernist literary and theoretical critique to provide a lens to understand theories and works written in a time when prevailing views don't align with our modern sensibilities, and I'll leave examples out to avoid hot topics, so let's keep this relevent to Black Library specifically.

 

Black Library, producing licensed content for a fictional universe, isn't exactly a publisher I would think this applies to. The point of BL fiction is to expand on the lore of the table top game, which is ultimately a vehicle to sell models. It's not allegory or social commentary, so I don't see why this term even applies to the setting at all.

 

So what are the arguments for it actually applying?

I was fascinated by this issue too (I have a day job teaching politics in literature), and wrote to Andy Chambers about it. As I don't want to violate the rule about off-topic political discussions, I won't be specific, but I was asking about recent interpretations of 40K. The following is what he said (and authorized me to quote/share): "Heh, 'here's a hornet's nest, care to give it a shake?' Ok, I'll say this; the fascism in 40K has been and will always be a joke, a grotesque example of a madman's fantasy made real. When I first started working at GW in 1990 I was advised by fellow writer Bill King to read [The Iron Dream by Norman Spinrad] and understand that we were doing much the same thing. Despite the warning over the years I did my part to make the dark millennium more gritty, realistic and less obviously jokey because that's what I wanted it to be, I'm deeply saddened that some find that dystopian world view of 'purge the other' so appealing. It's an easy lie to swallow that 'others' have done something to you that was actually done by your own leaders and representatives, but we fall for it time and again. I'm starting to believe it must be hardwired into our skulls."

 

So, the question remains as to whether any of the newer fans'/critics' differing interpretations are any less valid than those of Chambers, et al. given the passage of years and the fact that people like Chambers have left GW.

[mc warhammer]

while we're supplying interesting quotes, here's one from wikipedia (which hopefully means i won't get another slap on the wrist):

 

To me the background to 40K was always intended to be ironic. [...] The fact that the Space Marines were lauded as heroes within Games Workshop always amused me, because they’re brutal, but they’re also completely self-deceiving. The whole idea of the Emperor is that you don’t know whether he’s alive or dead. The whole Imperium might be running on superstition. There’s no guarantee that the Emperor is anything other than a corpse with a residual mental ability to direct spacecraft. It’s got some parallels with religious beliefs and principles, and I think a lot of that got missed and overwritten.

 

— Rick Priestly, in a December 2015 interview with Unplugged Games

 

i'm not adding this with any particular intent, other than for the interests of people on this thread for another creative's viewpoint

[Legatus]

The indivdual reader may interpret it as a power play, but the objective fact of the narrative is that it wasn't and because the objective fact of the narrative doesn't support the reader bias against the ultramarines they invoke the DotA.

 

They might not even consciously invoke it. They may also believe that their understanding of the situation is exactly as the author meant it, even if seen from the outside and in full context perhaps it wasn't.

 

Another example, in 'Vengeful Spirit' Malcador, in a conversation with the Emperor himself, calls Guilliman an "empire builder". ("It's Guilliman, what do you think he's doing? He's building an empire.")

To me this looks very much like a derogatory remark. This term had been used by their detractors to deride the Ultramarines for many years, and now here it seems like the important and authoritative Characters in the story are in on the joke. And seeing who the author is only confirms my interpretation, as he has a long history of being critical of the Ultramarines and their Codex adherance.

So here I do not only have my personal interpretation, based on my long dealing with the subject matter, I am also somewhat convinced that the author meant it the way I interpret it.

But maybe I am just being a bit too cynical. Certainly someone without my baggage of arguing against Ultramarine haters for years may just interpret that scene as both Malcador and the Emperor simply acknowledging the Ultramarines' achievements in building a prosperous and stable empire. Maybe the author didn't mean anything derogatory by it.

 

I interpret it negatively because I have a background in encountering these terms in a negative context. But I also have a perception of the author as not necessarily having the best for the Ultramarines in mind.

Another reader may not only not associate these terms with a negative context (not having fan-battled across many online Forums), he may also have a different perception of the author, as someone who fully appreciates the Ultramarines, based on his volume of work about them.

Two different interpretations, but none is really dismissing what the author may have wanted to say. One of us just got it wrong.

[Bonestomper]

I think 40K suffers from Poe's law.