The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Petitioner's City]

Tuomas Pirinen, the ex-GW designer responsible for much of fantasy (including MOrdheim) in days past, runs an excellent Facebook wall full of striking thoughts about the industry. Today he posted on how there should be more use of unreliable narrators in the texts surrounding games:

 

 

UNRELIABLE NARRATOR AND THE DARK ELF HISTORIES

 

I was chatting with a fellow games industry pro Cam Rogers about how we should use the unreliable narrator more in games.

An unreliable narrator is a narrator, whether in literature, film, or theatre, whose credibility has been seriously compromised.

Sometimes the narrator's unreliability is made immediately evident. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to the character's unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story's end. In some cases, the reader discovers that in the foregoing narrative, the narrator had concealed or greatly misrepresented vital pieces of information.

 

Unreliable narrator in fiction is of course nothing new: the most famous instance of it is by George Orwell in his seminal work, “1984” where you realize that everything told to you about the world could (and indeed most like is) a lie, as it comes from the representatives of the horrible regime of Oceania. In film, one of the greatest revelations to me was when I realised that the only source of information on the "bugs" I have is the propaganda of the Federation in the Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoven masterfully lures you into cheering for the horrid, morally empty government of Earth against the Klendathu aliens, with the final punch coming when one of the “heroes” you have been following turns up wearing full-on Gestapo outfit and proceeds to torture an intelligent specimen of the Alien race. It took me years to realise that most likely, the destruction and the massive death toll in Buenos Aires was not caused by the hated "bugs" but probably was a false flag operation to rally humans into an unjust intergalactic war.

 

I used the Unreliable narrator when I wrote the Dark Elf history for Warhammer 6th edition (see the attached images). I wanted those who read it to at least half-believe the viewpoint of the Dark Elves, and in order to achieve the effect I created a Druchii persona, Furion of Clar Karond, for myself. I really tried to justify all the evil deeds of the Dark Elves through the history to myself, and then wrote it all down. It is unlikely that any race or nation, no matter how morally bankrupt, would ever view themselves as purely evil, or think that their actions are not justified. The Warhammer Armies background were always written from the point of view of the faction covered by the narration, which sometimes lead into conflicting narratives: in hindsight, this was the right decision: it leaves room for doublt, imagination and mystery, and reflects the history of the real world: just look at how many completely differing descriptions there are for each major battle in the ancient history.

 

We really should use the unreliable narrator more in games. It makes you think, and that can only be a good thing.

 

 

 

 

I really like his wall, and this has made me think. People - fans - are very concerned with canon and correct histories and gluing things together; yet wargames as settings are fundamentally anti-canonical. We all make stories within them, be it on teh table, in our models or through other ways. But it's also that we often talk about the codices as if they have an authorial voice (an unrelaible one), but in truth they don't. They don't claim, unlike the FW HH books, to be written from in-universe perspectives, meaning they are in a confused place of omniscient, and therefore true, viewer on the universe, and ... something else. Because it boggles the mind that they could be 'true', sometimes (Gathering Storm, for example). 

 

Really, shouldn't every codex be written from a 'perspective', rather than the muddy, ;pseudo-canonical way most of their texts are written?

Edited August 31, 2017 by Petitioner's City

[Rik Lightstar]

I've always thought it was clear that:

 

In any rulebook, army book, codex or supplement that GW produce everything with the sole exception of the rules themselves is written from the perspective of "in faction propaganda" unless it is "boxed out" and then it's a quote.

 

It's been that way for a long while.

 

Rik

[Arkangilos]

I've always thought it was clear that:

 

In any rulebook, army book, codex or supplement that GW produce everything with the sole exception of the rules themselves is written from the perspective of "in faction propaganda" unless it is "boxed out" and then it's a quote.

 

It's been that way for a long while.

 

Rik

The problem with that would be things such as, "The Lion is still alive in the rock" because literally no one knows that.

[Petitioner's City]

I've always thought it was clear that:

 

In any rulebook, army book, codex or supplement that GW produce everything with the sole exception of the rules themselves is written from the perspective of "in faction propaganda" unless it is "boxed out" and then it's a quote.

 

It's been that way for a long while.

 

Rik

 

It's not clear, and the problem with the codices are that they are 'omniscient' - there is no text, except the little quote boxes, which are 'in-universe' or 'attributed' or suggestions of folk. It's all third person with no sense of a writer. What you have done is 'fanon', which I completely agree with the practice of, but here (as with other cases of fanon or fan fiction papering over textual issues), the text doesn't always or even often support that interpretation, as Arkangelos identifies with the specific case of the Lion.

 

More so, the codices themselves, standing very distinct from the Horus Heresy books, do not claim to be the words of someone or something in the world (that is what the quote boxes actually do, they do take on the voice of a person). Rather, the codex texts stand awkwardly as 'omniscient' source for game. I would prefer it if they had a more clear authorial voice,a more clear unreliable narrator, which is where I believe Pirinen's insightful argument and example are.

 

It's also perhaps why fiction (especially first person fiction like Eisenhorn, Ravenor, Pariah, Talon of Horus, etc) or all the FW Heresy books since Betrayal have worked so well as windows into the world - and stand so distinct from the codices too. they are in-world, they are histories and narratives - curations of lives and events that advertise themselves that way. the curation of the codices is not that. 

[Bryan Blaire]

Whether you ascribe to the idea or not, 40K as a setting does work a lot better over all when using the idea that "everything you have been told is a lie, everything you have been told is the truth". Honestly, if no one except the Emperor knows that the Lion is within the Rock asleep, then who exactly is writing the Codex? Even the Emperor had a little flaw. An omniscient narrator? How do we know they are actually omniscient? The author of the Codex is never actually stated, even by GW - they haven't ever said "Trust everything written in a Codex, it is the truth of the universe". Maybe the author of the Codex is actually someone who is looking back on the history of 40K and is wrong? GW itself has continued to add doubt regarding the authenticity of things in the Codex like the timeline by describing the Chronostrife - even the timeline in the Codex is doubtful.

 

Also, as a different but similar discussion concluded with in the Dark Angels forum: don't try to apply the rules of canonicity from one fictional universe to another one. Nothing is demanded of 40K to work like anything other than itself. I would not assume that even "omniscient" writings for 40K are automatically the truth.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love for the narrator to be identified at the beginning of a Codex and everything written from that perspective.

[Petitioner's City]

Yeah, Bryan, I agree - I like this idea, indeed my approach to codices is to doubt first :D

 

But then, if so, more of BL or other writers in the IP would be able to ignore elements or even swathes of them (like the imaginative freedom of Abnett & his werewolves as khornate magic, or Gudru. speeder bikes, etc, but then people complain). Yet canonicity is an idea in 40k, even if it also is a fan construction (as it always seems to be).

 

I'm not using other fictional universe ideas here though. I use canon because I think a lot of fans use it, and though they might hold to the codices being unreliable, do they act like it? Do they need more tells, or do the writers need more of what Pirinen writes?

 

What do you think of what he writes?

[Wargamer]

Those army books had some of the best lore GW ever created. The High Elves, Dark Elves and Dwarfs all had conflicting accounts of the War of the Beard, and it made trying to peace together the truth a part of the fun.

 

GW should be writing a lot more material from an in universe perspective.

[Kizzdougs]

The unreliable narrator was far more prevalent in the older Army Books and even Codexes, but I think that WHFB made better use of it than 40k did. The High Elves Army Book that was the contemporary of the Dark Elves book (quoted above), even the unit descriptions were from an in-universe perspective. Those army books were always talking about 'our armies' and 'the riches of our people.' The opening sentence for the High Elves army roster was "We, the Asur, are a noble people, our long and proud history stretching back to a time when Men were still fur-clad savages." How cool is that! It really helped you appreciate the character of the individual races and factions, and made the whole experience a lot more immersive and convincing. It was endless fun arguing with friends, who collected Dwarfs or Dark Elves, about the origins of the War of the Beard.

 

White Dwarf magazine took the same approach for a while too. If you look at the White Dwarf battle reports from the early/mid 2000s, many of them were also written from a narrative/in-universe perspective. They never described the dice rolling a miss-fire, for example, instead they describe how the apprentice gunner had incorrectly loaded the cannon and the punishment he would receive if he survived the battle against the marauding Greenskin horde.

 

These days Codexes seem a lot more matter of fact and less immersive in their approach. 

 

 

Perhaps it's just nostalgia, but that period of writing and that style of Army Book and Codex was definitely my favourite :tu:

[Adeptus]

I think the use of an unreliable narrator is absolutely vital for 40K. It allows the reader to construct their own 41st millennium, or to deconstruct the one given to them by GW, so anything that find out of character, anything that strains credulity, anything they find disagreeable they can hand wave away as being part of the unreliable narration. It also gives us a lot more wiggle room when setting our own stories in the 41st millennium since basically nothing is set in stone.
 
It's my personal headcanon that everything we're given in the codexes and rulebooks etc is unreliable in nature, but it does grate ever so slightly that I it isn't really unreliable.

[Shockmaster]

I much preferred the older codices that had more unreliable in universe background material, I still enjoy the current books but reading a few paragraphs on each unit explaining why they are the best unit at this or that does not offer the same magic as the older books, I suppose at some point GW made the decision to leave that kind of thing purely to the BL authors.

[N1SB]

I agree with pretty much everything you guys mentioned. Rick Priestley, the granddaddy of 40k, mentored those that followed him that "it never pays to tie up loose ends". Headcanon is part of the game, it's our way of personalising the lore just as we customise our armies. I loved 30k's concept of Remembrancers; it's genius.

But recently GW HAS been using an unreliable narrator majorly, which I love, but it's totally understandable you missed it as it's completely voluntary reading*:

* this completely voluntary reading material is absolutely mandatory on pain of death, so get reading, Guardsman.

+++++

It IS an interesting question why GW had initially departed from this practice of unreliable narration. I think it might be driven by the fandom, who feel, when buying a product such as a codex, they should have the clearest, most definitive version of information possible. Both a codex and a novel are books, but they are positioned differently because they are bought for different purposes. I think FW HH books found/invented a really ideal compromise though as incomplete documentaries.

S'a good question. Gonna think about this more.

[A D-B]

In a lot of industry get-togethers/projects I've been on or around, this gets referred to as the difference between "wet" and "dry" text. 

 

Wet text engages and immerses. Dry text explains.

 

You can have in-character or out-of-character text, and there's no guarantee of quality, or wetness/dryness either way. It doesn't have to be IC to be wet; the old 2nd Edition Codex Imperialis (still my 40K Bible) was engaging and immersive despite being out-of-character. But IC text is often wet by virtue of what it is and what it's doing: it's someone in the setting talking about their life and experiences.

 

Anyone who's read White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade / Mage: the Ascension / Werewolf: the Apocalypse's clanbooks, orderbooks, tribebooks, etc. books knows this by heart. And what Tuomas is referring to with the older Dark Elf book is the same thing. It's in-character, and it's wet. Forge World's HH books do the same - Alan went with a staggeringly unreliable narrator.

 

There's a very real joy to those kinds of books, with a member of that vampiric bloodline or werewolf tribe telling you about their own people - the people your character is joining, or about a history you're reading - and taking it all on board, flavoured with their prejudices and biases, especially when they even admit to them. It's realistic, and so it makes the world feel real. It's that simple. 

 

I've always believed it's a way better way to write gaming background books, and a huge chunk of why White Wolf used to do so well. It's also one of the reasons I like first-person narratives in novels, to read as well as to write. You retain the critical analysis of being able to go "...no way, you biased goober..." to the main character, but you're still involved in their journey and engaged in seeing the world through their eyes. FitzChivalry Farseer is an incredible example of that: when you're inside his head you think the world is being completely unfair to him and all of his decisions are justified, but in the cold light of day (and when other characters challenge him) you start to think "...hey, wait, you messed this one up, Fitz."

 

EDIT: I should add, importantly, another reason unreliable narrators work so well is because of a key theme behind what 40K is. It's future history. It's always been envisioned and explained as fragmented stories being brought back from a past that just hasn't happened yet. Scholars and storytellers piecing it together, like a Dark Age, where truth is so corrupted by time and decay that nothing is absolute. (Another reason why 40K's canon never really existed. It's not accidental or to cover mistakes, it's the point of the setting's theme.)

Edited September 1, 2017 by A D-B

[grailkeeper]

The problem I have with unreliable narrators is that I often fail to pick up on it unless its blindingly obvious. Maybe I am too trusting or not smart enough. Maybe I am lazy in just wanting a story and not wanting to think outside of what I am told. Then again on the other hand maybe it's used on occasion to impute something that really doesn't appear at all in the text or as a shield against criticism. I am all for having stories told from a narrators perspective but there are times when an someone may say a narrator is unreliable when there is very little to suggest that.

 

My favourite 40k unreliable narrator/ running joke is the covers of the Caiphas Cain books being in universe propaganda- as evidenced by the fact he always heroically wields bolters, which the character never does in the texts.

Edited September 2, 2017 by grailkeeper

[Brother Sefiel]

Greetings

I've always found that the best thing to do is to assume that it's all unreliable.

I'm no longer as enthused by GW's background as I once was; that's not to say I don't like some of it, but what mainly matters to me now is my little metal men and women, and their appearances on the tabletop that form the backdrop to their stories. The rest of it isn't such a big deal.

Take what you want; chuck the rest in the bin.

[Yodhrin]

In a lot of industry get-togethers/projects I've been on or around, this gets referred to as the difference between "wet" and "dry" text. 

 

Wet text engages and immerses. Dry text explains.

 

You can have in-character or out-of-character text, and there's no guarantee of quality, or wetness/dryness either way. It doesn't have to be IC to be wet; the old 2nd Edition Codex Imperialis (still my 40K Bible) was engaging and immersive despite being out-of-character. But IC text is often wet by virtue of what it is and what it's doing: it's someone in the setting talking about their life and experiences.

 

Anyone who's read White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade / Mage: the Ascension / Werewolf: the Apocalypse's clanbooks, orderbooks, tribebooks, etc. books knows this by heart. And what Tuomas is referring to with the older Dark Elf book is the same thing. It's in-character, and it's wet. Forge World's HH books do the same - Alan went with a staggeringly unreliable narrator.

 

There's a very real joy to those kinds of books, with a member of that vampiric bloodline or werewolf tribe telling you about their own people - the people your character is joining, or about a history you're reading - and taking it all on board, flavoured with their prejudices and biases, especially when they even admit to them. It's realistic, and so it makes the world feel real. It's that simple. 

 

I've always believed it's a way better way to write gaming background books, and a huge chunk of why White Wolf used to do so well. It's also one of the reasons I like first-person narratives in novels, to read as well as to write. You retain the critical analysis of being able to go "...no way, you biased goober..." to the main character, but you're still involved in their journey and engaged in seeing the world through their eyes. FitzChivalry Farseer is an incredible example of that: when you're inside his head you think the world is being completely unfair to him and all of his decisions are justified, but in the cold light of day (and when other characters challenge him) you start to think "...hey, wait, you messed this one up, Fitz."

 

EDIT: I should add, importantly, another reason unreliable narrators work so well is because of a key theme behind what 40K is. It's future history. It's always been envisioned and explained as fragmented stories being brought back from a past that just hasn't happened yet. Scholars and storytellers piecing it together, like a Dark Age, where truth is so corrupted by time and decay that nothing is absolute. (Another reason why 40K's canon never really existed. It's not accidental or to cover mistakes, it's the point of the setting's theme.)

 

This last bit is why perhaps my least favourite part of the new Dark Imperium fluff(other than the fact of his return at all) is Rowboat's creation of his order of militant historians to go out and find the "true" Imperial history. The cynic in me can't help but see it as the sort of thing you'd come up with if you wanted an ideal tool for "fixing" 40K's conflicting, messy pseudocanon with a more constructed, "official" omniscient account.

 

Also - every time I read Tuomas' thoughts on fiction and game design, I realise more & more why I still consider the era surrounding Mordheim & 6thEd WHFB as my personal "golden age" of GW despite getting into things a few years before that. Until Alan's sad passing I think losing him was one of the worst things to happen to GW from a quality perspective.

[SpecialIssue]

 

EDIT: I should add, importantly, another reason unreliable narrators work so well is because of a key theme behind what 40K is. It's future history. It's always been envisioned and explained as fragmented stories being brought back from a past that just hasn't happened yet. Scholars and storytellers piecing it together, like a Dark Age, where truth is so corrupted by time and decay that nothing is absolute. (Another reason why 40K's canon never really existed. It's not accidental or to cover mistakes, it's the point of the setting's theme.)

 

Interested to know how the idea of '40k doesn't have canon' is still viable, when BL HH novels/Dark Imperium are clearly laying out in no vague terms so many secrets that once were just as mythical and shrouded to fans as they were to the characters in-universe.

 

We have stories telling the exact origin of Janus, what Vulkan's artifacts were, flat-out stating and showing that the Emperor bargained with Chaos to create the Primarchs, Custodes 'power levels' in relation to Astartes, let alone the entire Heresy arc itself etc. All of these were once unthinkable, wrapped in awe, myth and heresay, but are now seen as little more than a mundane extension of 40k.

 

How are these stories not contributing to a concrete 'canon'? Almost none of them take place with through an unreliable viewpoint or narrator, or raise more questions than answers. The universe is quite clearly being locked down under these objective events and narratives.

[Bryan Blaire]

Aren't all those events witnessed or spoken of through the viewpoint of just one, or maybe a couple of characters? There's your answer right there - just because one witness to an event saw/said/did X, not all other witnesses will see/say/do exactly the same thing. Even though the overall event accounting will indicate a broad view of what actually happened, details will be recorded different and filtered through individual perceptions, etc. Even the meanings of what someone said can take on different importances or be reinterpretated through the lens of the observer.

 

Even the readers have been misinterpreting the statements/thoughts of characters in the series - how many times has ADB himself had to say "People, seriously, the rumor/off hand comment that the Lost Legions were absorbed into the 13th Legion were just that - it was a rumor/off hand comment, not something that was true or concrete in the setting."

 

Just in the interactions with the Emperor, we can see that even he has different interpretations fed back to the observers when they interact with him. This does lead to the question - "Was the Emperor really only viewing his creations as tools, or was he really a loving father? Did he actually care about the fate of humanity, or was he simply trying to create his own vision?"

 

Obviously there are something setting truths, things that are concrete - the Heresy happened, the Emperor was a real being, etc., but that doesn't mean that every single thing that's a character within the Horus Heresy series is giving the absolutely truth from outside their own interpretation.

[Wargamer]

I can't believe I didn't bring this up sooner, but I'm sure a lot of people are going to yell "of course!" when I point out the best piece of unreliable narration GW ever published.

 

The Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer.

 

This book, written entirely from an in-universe perspective, contains such vital and entirely factual information as:

• Imperial Artillery has faultless accuracy - friendly fire is impossible.
• Orks are physically weaker than Humans.
• Genestealers are slow, stupid and their claws are blunt.
• Alien weaponry is weak, flimsy and prone to failure.
• Alien armour cannot withstand a direct hit from a Lasgun.

Many authors, including Abnett, treat the Primer as a joke - all Guardsmen know it's bollocks and don't take it seriously. I actually think this is a misstep on their part, albeit one that might be necessary to make their cast relatable.

 

I actually think the entire 40K setting is greatly improved if the Imperial Guard genuinely believe the Primer is true. Moreover, they believe this even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Even Guardsmen who have seen lasbolts bounce of Eldar Aspect Armour believe alien armour is ineffective. Guardsmen who have seen Orks rip their comrades limb from limb believe Orks are physically weak. Guardsmen who have fought against Chaos Space Marines believe Chaos Space Marines do not exist.

 

40K has always evoked contrary, dissonant imagery; robed monks covered in cybernetic implants; space warriors fighting like medieval knights; medieval knights with laser guns and jetpacks. 40K is an inherent contradiction. It is also a grim, oppressive, terrible place - something the surface level material often conveys very well, but high-detail stories completely fail to convey most of the time.

 

This obvious dissonance, this Orwellian black-white double-think fits perfectly with 40K. The Imperial Guard know the power of their enemies from personal experience, yet they know through Faith and Obedience their personal experience is wrong.

[Noserenda]

Unreliable narrators are the best way to write fluff, the gold standard to me is always the original Legend of 5 rings clanbooks where John wick had to write in one of them that yes, many clans are making outright impossible claims in their history and that was working as intended... :D Gave such beautiful interactions between players who had only read their book when such events were mentioned in play :D 

[Brother Sefiel]

​Hello

 

 

This obvious dissonance, this Orwellian black-white double-think fits perfectly with 40K. The Imperial Guard know the power of their enemies from personal experience, yet they know through Faith and Obedience their personal experience is wrong.

​Were you involved in the old Orwellian 40k thread? It summed up the best of what the game has to offer from its background, in my opinion.

[Wargamer]

​Hello

 

 

 

This obvious dissonance, this Orwellian black-white double-think fits perfectly with 40K. The Imperial Guard know the power of their enemies from personal experience, yet they know through Faith and Obedience their personal experience is wrong.

​Were you involved in the old Orwellian 40k thread? It summed up the best of what the game has to offer from its background, in my opinion.

Sadly I was not, but I think Orwell is a good place to go for inspiration on 40k thinking.

[Brother Sefiel]

​Hi

 

Sadly I was not, but I think Orwell is a good place to go for inspiration on 40k thinking.

​Yeah, it's the best way to justify all the background changes over the years, I think.

[bluntblade]

Before anyone jumps in with the "MoM proves Custodes are totes better than Astartes in war", I'd like to reiterate that that's not the sort of warfare in which the Legions would actually possess an advantage. You have them coming through as individuals and squads, not companies or entire Chapters.

[Wargamer]

​Hi

 

Sadly I was not, but I think Orwell is a good place to go for inspiration on 40k thinking.

​Yeah, it's the best way to justify all the background changes over the years, I think.

I think that risks falling into a lazy cop-out.

 

The Unreliable Narrator works best when the core frameworks are well understood and established. To use the earlier example, we know that the War of the Beard happened - that the Dark Elves, High Elves and Dwarfs were all involved and that the fight was long, bloody and permanently destroyed relations between the three factions. It's important to know that ahead of time, and ideally for the authors to have decided what the truth is before distorting it.

 

The distortion then becomes about how you present it in such a way as to glamourise your own faction, while omitting anything they shouldn't know.

 

So again, here's an overview:

 

Objective Truth: The Dark Elves, posing as High Elves, assassinated a Dwarven High King and thus sparked the war.

Dark Elves: "Through cunning and guile, we slew that feeble Dwarf King and blamed his murder on our arrogant cousins, dragging them into a bloody war that cost them tens of thousands of lives. It was a glorious victory for the true heir of Ulthuan!"

High Elves: "In an act of treachery so typical of their low-born kind, the Dark Elves murdered the Dwarf King and pinned his death upon us! We sought to show the Dwarfs the truth, that we were not to blame, but the barbarians killed every diplomat and messenger we sent! It was with a heavy heart we were forced to wage war upon them, for though we are masters of war we do not shed blood lightly, not even when it is right to do so."

Dwarfs: "So it was that, in his Wisdom, High King Trumgrim journeyed to the Elven Lands to offer them his friendship. The Elves welcomed him, but only so he could be lured into a trap! Many brave Dwarfs gave their lives that day, and a bloody toll was wrought, but our good King died upon Elven daggers. This crime was recorded in the Book of Grudges, so we might never forget that an Elf's word is like their craftsmanship; all glitter and no substance."

 

The danger of just handwaving "it's all subjective" is you could quickly run into a situation where all three accounts become so disparate that it's clearly not talking about the same event. For example, if you establish the Dwarfs know about the Dark Elves and their back-stabbing, manipulative nature, then the war now seems to be nothing but pig-headed stupidity - the Dwarfs are now openly waging war on the High Elves despite knowing, or at least having good reason to believe the High Elves were framed!

 

Another factor you have to consider is the knock-on effects any such retcon has on other lore. Back to 40K again, if you move the Damocles Gulf Crusade from mid to late M41, you have the knock-on effect that Hive Fleet Behemoth needs to be moved as well, because virtually every source agrees that the Imperium abandoned the Crusade as a result of Hive Fleet Behemoth. Arguing that the Imperium must have fallen back due to Kraken instead isn't any better - it's just a poor attempt to cover over the fact you didn't bother to do any basic fact checking.

 

Personally, I think a good way to apply unreliable narration is after you objectively establish some core facts. For example: if you're writing an introduction to 40K, you probably want to objectively state what the Imperium is in broad terms, who the Emperor is, and give a quick summary of the Horus Heresy. This will immediately inform people about several important concepts - the Emperor, Space Marines, the Imperium of Man and Chaos.

 

Now here's a good place to provide subjective dissonance: in Codex Space Marines and other Imperial sources, we should be informed via unreliable narrators that no Space Marine has ever fallen to Chaos. Ever. In fact, it's not possible for such a thing to happen. The very idea that Chaos exists at all should be omitted from all but the most high-security documents, restricted from everyone but the most trusted of individuals.

 

Why would you do this? Because it immediately tells people something very important about 40K. They know that Chaos Marines exist because they read about the Horus Heresy. Hell, they know Chaos Marines exist because they've seen the Codex and the models on the shelf of the store! Yet the lore keeps telling them Chaos Space Marines do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist.

 

The reader is going to catch on very quickly that the Imperium is suppressing information about Chaos. That in turn lends itself to the revelation the Imperium is probably suppressing information about a lot of other things as well. Through the simple act of blatant, unashamed in-universe denial of things that we as omniscient viewers know to be objectively true, vast amounts of information can be provided in a very short space of time.

 

It also lets us do something else that's really cool. See, along comes Codex: Dark Angels and now we can learn about the Fallen. But again, we learn about them through the eyes of someone entrusted with their existence - members of the Inner Circle. Here we have a group of Dark Angels talking about how another group of Dark Angels fell to Chaos, and that this knowledge must never reach the wider Imperium, and must even be kept from most of the Chapter. Excellent! We've got something sinister going on here!

 

...but hang on a minute, this is all still from an unreliable narrator. Nothing in this Codex ever objectively states that the Fallen are Chaos Dark Angels. Everything we know about the Fallen comes from what the Inner Circle tell us the Fallen are, and we've already been prepped to doubt the honesty of the Imperium's scholars. Can we trust these sources? Can we be sure the Fallen really are what we're told they are? Moreover, the Inner Circle don't tiptoe around the whole 'Chaos' thing like everyone else does. The only place we've found such in-universe openness so far is Codex: Chaos Space Marines...

 

Finally, we have an opportunity to show off a bit of badassery. Along comes Codex: Grey Knights and once again we see a familiar refrain; no Grey Knight has ever fallen to Chaos.

 

Wait, hang on. That's not an unreliable narrator. That's not an in-universe claim. That's an objective fact. No Grey Knight has ever fallen to Chaos. This time, GW mean it! This is something so vital to the Grey Knights that they needed to make sure you knew it, and that there was no room for doubt or misunderstanding. No Grey Knight has ever fallen to Chaos. These guys are nails!

 

Okay, I think I've ranted enough. Hopefully, you all got something out of that.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Wargamer

[Leif Bearclaw]

 And what Tuomas is referring to with the older Dark Elf book is the same thing. It's in-character, and it's wet. Forge World's HH books do the same - Alan went with a staggeringly unreliable narrator.

 

 

That actually presents a problem imo. The older Fantasy stuff is the best example because it's so obvious the narrator is an unreliable, partisan cheerleader for the book's faction. The HH books, as excellent as they are, don't really do this. While it's obviously written as an in-universe history (with some important things, like the webway project, obviously unknown), in all the 7 thus far there seems to be little to justify the mystery author as 'staggeringly' unreliable. Especially as he's currently anonymous, so the reader can't make any kind of estimate of his unreliability (unlike with Furion of Clar Karond). That reminds me of a quote from Laurie Goulding (spelling?) that was floating around a while back, in which he seemed to be taking such glee in the identity of the author, and when it was revealed it would completely pull the rug out from under us. That is the bad side of unreliable narration, because it makes the customer feel they've been the butt of a years long, highly expensive joke at their expense.

 

 

Many authors, including Abnett, treat the Primer as a joke - all Guardsmen know it's bollocks and don't take it seriously. I actually think this is a misstep on their part, albeit one that might be necessary to make their cast relatable.

 

I actually think the entire 40K setting is greatly improved if the Imperial Guard genuinely believe the Primer is true. Moreover, they believe this even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Even Guardsmen who have seen lasbolts bounce of Eldar Aspect Armour believe alien armour is ineffective. Guardsmen who have seen Orks rip their comrades limb from limb believe Orks are physically weak. Guardsmen who have fought against Chaos Space Marines believe Chaos Space Marines do not exist.

 

40K has always evoked contrary, dissonant imagery; robed monks covered in cybernetic implants; space warriors fighting like medieval knights; medieval knights with laser guns and jetpacks. 40K is an inherent contradiction. It is also a grim, oppressive, terrible place - something the surface level material often conveys very well, but high-detail stories completely fail to convey most of the time.

 

This obvious dissonance, this Orwellian black-white double-think fits perfectly with 40K. The Imperial Guard know the power of their enemies from personal experience, yet they know through Faith and Obedience their personal experience is wrong.

I'd have to disagree here. That would just make the Guardsmen look unbelievably stupid. Notably in most BL works, it's the veteran Guardsman who are dismissive of the Primer's propaganda, because they've seen the reality (just like a lot of Allied soldiers in WW2 quickly realised how wrong the propaganda they'd been fed in England was, that the Germans weren't a broken army with inferior tech just waiting to be rolled up etc.). Having the Guard blindly follow the Primer over their own experiences (without Inquisitor O'Brien putting them in the Chair after each firefight) does exactly what too much 40k fluff does, ramp up the grimderp inhumanity to the point it becomes incredulous that the Imperium survived 10 years, let alone 10,000.

 

That said, I do agree with the initial premise that unreliable narrator is a good thing, especially in things like Codexes, which are inherently partisan to begin with. Stuff like this makes me miss the days with Pirinen and co. at the helm. GW have never really achieved those heights since imo.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Leif Bearclaw