The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Yodhrin]

I'll say in defence of Abnett that his stories aren't so much "21stC in 41stM" as they are "18th & 19thC in 41stM". There's a reason folk trying to elevator-pitch Gaunt's Ghosts to their non-40K fan mates say "it's like Sharpe in space".

[Ascanius]

I'd agree with you if I could recall any examples like that in the 40k fiction I've read, and I'd like to say that I've read my fair share.

 

I haven't read any of the older series like Gaunt's Ghosts or Ciaphas Cain, but the horrors of the Imperium are on full display in the Horus Heresy series, that's for sure.

[Petitioner's City]

 

Just because an idea is established or commonly held doesn't make it insightful or even true. All authors are different. C.S. Goto's 40k is different from Abnett's is different from ADB's. That doesn't make it 'not 40k' or '40k lite.'

 

 

 

But when the idea is a collection of commonly held opinions, then those opinions being commonly held make it true.

 

I'm sorry, that is a facetious common denominator argument. That kind of arguing is problematic - indeed it is a categorical fallacious argument, the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people, or, less of a direct translation, argument to numbers). It's a bandwagon argument, the kind of dangerous rational argument which currently messes up with the world. When faced with a bandwagon argument, one should be quite keen to ask, where is your evidence, and why do people think that, and why do you deny my own subjective opinion through bullying via a (n invisible or unproven) majority? 

 

More so, your argument is an argument which cannot hold weight over a subjective and highly unstable idea of what a fictional universe is - especially one which has dramatically evolved over the last 20 years, since Dan started writing for the IP about 1998. Can you tell me the world of 2nd or 3rd edition is the world of 7th or 8th edition? Indeed the majority of Dan's texts are from 3rd-5th editions, relating to older IP elements such as 3rd & 4th edition (which he then directly influenced through inclusions in a number of 3.5 and 4th edition codices, as well as a continuing impact on FW texts), Inquisitor (which was anything which the mind could imagine) and for much of his writing career, the FW folks behind Imperial Armour who were also expanding the IP past sometimes narrow definitions. I.e. exactly what he does, as someone who formed the firmament of the IP through some of its most dramatic growth periods. There is more here, but i don't think there is a correct IP or an actual "canon" - hence my endorsement of Pirinen's FB text - even if one looks at codices and rulebooks. 

 

So I reject this interpretation, I hope you understand why. For me, it is based on a flawed hermeneutic of what makes the correct version of an IP or even a fictional universe, and the dangerous trappings of groupthink on internet forums & chat stations. Let me even reverse it - how many people, who did not contribute to the past conversations you have engaged in or have read, have had their understanding of the IP shaped by Abnett? Probably quite a few - a situation still endorsed by BL/GW's use of Abnett as a flagship of the IP through limited editions, republications and understanding his importance to BL weekenders. Do these people for you not know the authentic 40K, but some schismatic other church, some protestant to your catholic, shia to your sunni, some etc to your etc?

 

A hermeneutic of IP work that I favour, which might be worth considering in as widely and disparately created and recreated IP like 40K, is Bryan Fuller's model of "fan fiction" - where everything is interpretation of a discrete or fixed source.

 

 

Sepinwall: You and Mads had several years to present your own spin on Hannibal, and he wasn’t really that much like the Cox or Hopkins versions. Did you have any pause about having him recite a lot of those familiar taunting lines of dialogue when Will and others visited him in his cell?

Bryan Fuller: I did. There are definitely scenes where I was like, “Wow, this is exactly the same,” but I felt a certain obligation to hardcore fans of the book. Despite us altering the story in our fanfiction approach to the novels, there are still iconic scenes that I as a Fannibal wanted to see Mads do. I wanted to see him put on those sweaters.

 

Sepinwall: Hannibal is a character who’s had a long and successful run in other media. Why do you think this one didn’t connect with a larger audience?

Bryan Fuller: I wanted to be very authentic to the tone of the books, and very authentic to Thomas Harris. And I think there is a version of Hannibal, say if you cast James Spader, or Hugh Grant as Hannibal Lecter, and leaned into the slightly campier, more accessible aspects of the films that we began to see in the later movies, then that might have connected in a way that pop culture understood Hannibal. But I chose to go back to the source material and make it as genuine to the source material and my fanfiction approach as I could, and give it a level of sobriety and dignity, even I look at the show as a very black comedy. It was very literary, it was very pretentious, and very niche. I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that it didn’t find an audience. Initially, there was a lot of fatigue with the character, and people felt the character was played out, and I heard from countless people how they weren’t even interested in seeing the show because they weren’t interested in Hannibal Lecter again. But the casting of Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal Lecter gave us, for me, the best version of Hannibal Lecter. But perhaps not the most commercial.

 

Source: Alan Sepinwall interviewing Bryan Fuller.

 

 

Throughout the series’ three-season run, Hannibal showrunner Bryan Fuller has asserted that he regards the show as fanfiction: an affectionate remix of elements from Thomas Harris’ novels Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising, as well as from previous adaptations of those works. Hannibal, then, is transparent about being one of many “proliferations of shared sources” that comprise the “metaphorical archive” of the fandom’s fiction (De Kosnik 119). In positioning the series as fanfiction, and he and his team as fanfiction writers, Fuller claims the identity and ethos of not just a fan, but a feminine-genderedfan, those most maligned and oft-mocked in many media depictions of fandom. With that ethos in hand, Hannibal-as-fanfic has chosen to intertextually and ardently acknowledge both the practices and the affect of its primarily female fandom—allowing Fannibals to see some part of themselves, of their fannish identity, reflected back with love from within the series itself.

 

Hannibal treats the repetitive nature of fanfic—stories that “play out” a multiplicity of variations of the same basic story—as a source of narrative strength: because in repetition, the series suggests, there is possibility (ibid). Within a fandom’s archive, as Will puts it: “Everything that can happen, happens. It has to end well and it has to end badly. It has to end every way that it can” (Hannibal, “Primavera” 3.2). The archive is always in the act of Becoming, and, as Abigail De Kosnik argues in “Fifty Shades and the Archive of Women’s Culture,” that ongoing evolution asks fans to repeatedly engage with the archive’s contents, old and new, and to determine for themselves which stories “satisfy, which . . . liberate, and which . . . alienate” (De Kosnik 120). In this way, fans perform a careful cultivation of their preferred variations of the narrative and sketch out their own corner of the archive—their “fanon”—which captures the story elements they most enjoy (ibid).

 

As fanfic—as a fan-authored text, albeit a network televised one—Hannibal openly acknowledges that it’s both a product of fannish cultivation and a participant in a wider ecology of fannish production. The events of episode 3.9, “…and the Woman Clothed with the Sun,” for example, underscore Fuller and company’s awareness of—and affection for—contributions that fans themselves have made to this shared archive during the series’ run.

In this scene, a reluctantly un-retired Will Graham is prowling the scene of the Tooth Fairy’s latest murder when he’s confronted by tabloid journalist Freddie Lounds. Will hasn’t seen Freddie years—since he pretended to kill her in order to impress Hannibal at the end of season two—but he’s clearly been keeping up with her work at Tattle Crime.

 

Will: I’m not talking to you.

Freddie: We’re co-conspirators, Will. I died for you and your cause.

Will: You didn’t die enough. You came into my hospital room while I was sleeping, flipped back the covers, and snapped a photo of my temporary colostomy bag.

Freddie: I covered your junk with a black box. A big black box. You’re welcome.

Will: You called us ‘murder husbands’!

Freddie: You did run off to Europe together.

 

What’s important here—aside from actor Hugh Dancy’s delicious facial expression—is that “murder husbands” is a fan-generated term, one that some Fannibals use to describe the gorgeous, gory relationship between Hannibal and Will. Specifically, describing the men as “murder husbands” underscores the deadly potential of their pairing, something explored with particular aplomb at the end of season 2, when Will not only pretended to kill Freddie but actually did murder one of Hannibal’s former patients—whom Hannibal had sent to kill Will. With Hannibal’s lethal cunning and Will’s own capacity for violence combined, some Fannibals believe that “Hannigram” could form a deadly power couple and wreak beautiful, terrible havoc.

 

Source: KT Torrey, "Love for the Fannish Archive: Fuller's Hannibal as Fanfiction".

 

 

Fuller: “We started with the book. We sat down and had a conversation about, ‘What do you remember from the first read of the book, the things that stuck with you’. We both singled out Salim and the djinn and we were fascinated with the Laura character but wanted to do more with her – really it was lovely because we just got to fanboy out about the show and all those things that we liked we just made sure we were going to represent them as beautifully as we imagined when we read the book. It was really about being fan-fiction.”

 

Green: “It’s always that question of how do you give people who don’t know the book or don’t remember the book that experience we had reading it. We can only give them our experience of reading it, but that’s the advantage of being the one who’s allowed to adapt it. Someone else’s will be different and arguably better but ha-ha it’s ours.”

 

Source: Jordan Jones, "Bryan Fuller says American Gods series is 'fan-fiction'"

 

 

American Gods is a deeply and profoundly horny TV show. And of course it is: it’s fanfiction. Fuller’s adaptation of Gaiman’s novel isn’t a faithful one, and that’s where its genius lies. Instead, it’s the grand, operatic, incomplete, many-multi-part fanfiction you would find when you were up at 4am, wide-eyed and buzzing and sleepless. The show has the same sense of being plugged into a sweaty universe of equally wired, panting brains, fetid and shameful and all loving something desperately, all refusing to accept that the thing they love might be finite. Fuller pulls at every visible thread until the material itself collapses around him and then reshapes that material into something more like a hyperlinked map than a story. Every brief story, every offhand comment, every character’s background, gets a full life and narrative, loves and dreams and hopes. His adaptation of Gaiman’s novel is both a riff and a tribute, a passion project that exudes love for the original text from its seams. But in its shaggy, life-affirming maximalism, it in fact – in my opinion – surpasses its source text by turning it inside out, throwing the hidden details into the spotlight

 

Source: Helena Fitzgerald, "Sex and Maximalism: Why the Best Adaptations Are Like Fanfiction"

 

In this way, all emulations of an IP are productions which do not need to meet the demands, but rather reformulate the elements of, an IP, and be free to add and mix and recreate. Then there is an "Abnettverse" that is allowed to be it, without being some gorupthink marked/excluded element - not as something to critique, but to celebrate. But it also then has a major impact on future interpretation... I might be overthinking, but it's a worthwhile consideration. 

[Adeptus]

 

 

Just because an idea is established or commonly held doesn't make it insightful or even true. All authors are different. C.S. Goto's 40k is different from Abnett's is different from ADB's. That doesn't make it 'not 40k' or '40k lite.'

 

But when the idea is a collection of commonly held opinions, then those opinions being commonly held make it true.

 

 

I'm sorry, that is a facetious common denominator argument. That kind of arguing is problematic - indeed it is a categorical fallacious argument, the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people, or, less of a direct translation, argument to numbers). It's a bandwagon argument, the kind of dangerous rational argument which currently messes up with the world. When faced with a bandwagon argument, one should be quite keen to ask, where is your evidence, and why do people think that, and why do you deny my own subjective opinion through bullying via a (n invisible or unproven) majority?

 

You're misinterpreting me right at the start.

 

When something is popular, it is popular because people like it or believe it to be true. This does not make it an argumentum ad populum, where an untrue thing is considered to be true because the belief is commonly held. When talking about whether or not something is popularly held or commonly believed, then giving weight to the volume of people that hold it is of critical importance. If we were to say that lots of people believe the sky is red, then lots of people are categorically wrong. The fact does not become true just because lots of people believe it. However, if we were to say lots of people like pizza, then the mere fact that lots of people DO like pizza makes the statement, that lots of people like pizza, true.

 

When you're stating that lots of people like something, then lots of people liking that thing becomes a critical component of that statement being true.

 

When it comes to the Abnett-verse, there is one simply because lots of people believe there to be one. Lots of people find that Abnett's interpretation of 40K is different in measurable and consistent ways from other sources. Different enough, and consistent enough that the fandom felt the need to create a word to describe it. A word which has a commonly understood meaning.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Adeptus

[Claws and Effect]

Pop culture works a lot like the Orks gestalt psychic belief power.

 

I.e., something is cool simply because a large group thinks it is.

 

Books, movies, comics, games, doesn't matter what said thing is.

 

I view Abnett's stories as a nice reminder that the Imperium, for all its horrors, is still populated by human beings that are capable of compassion and kindness.

 

The fact that these people ARE compassionate also serves as a spotlight shining on just how messed up everything really is.

 

If everything is grimdark everywhere, all the time it ceases to be a living, breathing universe and becomes a 2 dimensional caricature of itself. You have to have some behavior to compare the horrors to, or they aren't really horrors anymore.

[Petitioner's City]

 

 

 

Just because an idea is established or commonly held doesn't make it insightful or even true. All authors are different. C.S. Goto's 40k is different from Abnett's is different from ADB's. That doesn't make it 'not 40k' or '40k lite.'

 

But when the idea is a collection of commonly held opinions, then those opinions being commonly held make it true.

 

 

I'm sorry, that is a facetious common denominator argument. That kind of arguing is problematic - indeed it is a categorical fallacious argument, the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people, or, less of a direct translation, argument to numbers). It's a bandwagon argument, the kind of dangerous rational argument which currently messes up with the world. When faced with a bandwagon argument, one should be quite keen to ask, where is your evidence, and why do people think that, and why do you deny my own subjective opinion through bullying via a (n invisible or unproven) majority?

 

You're misinterpreting me right at the start.

 

When something is popular, it is popular because people like it or believe it to be true. This does not make it an argumentum ad populum, where an untrue thing is considered to be true because the belief is commonly held. When talking about whether or not something is popularly held or commonly believed, then giving weight to the volume of people that hold it is of critical importance. If we were to say that lots of people believe the sky is red, then lots of people are categorically wrong. The fact does not become true just because lots of people believe it. However, if we were to say lots of people like pizza, then the mere fact that lots of people DO like pizza makes the statement, that lots of people like pizza, true.

 

When you're stating that lots of people like something, then lots of people liking that thing becomes a critical component of that statement being true.

 

When it comes to the Abnett-verse, there is one simply because lots of people believe there to be one. Lots of people find that Abnett's interpretation of 40K is different in measurable and consistent ways from other sources. Different enough, and consistent enough that the fandom felt the need to create a word to describe it. A word which has a commonly understood meaning.

 

 

My philosopher manager (yes, academic) is saying you are being tautological (stating something is true makes it true). He's smiling at our back and forth, he finds what is interesting is that truth statements have value beyond the individual perception of a person; is the world flat, for example, which is more relevant for this. You might also be interested in democratic epistemology, he had a colleague who worked on this, of which there have been many phds and articles published, looking at the formations of things like crowdsourced knowledge creation from a broad community (wiki, for example, versus administrator-controlled wikias).  (My other colleague wonders if this is commercialisation or capitalisation of knowledge.)

 

But I also think you are arguing from within your own community of knowledge, and failing to address what I was saying - what is your evidence, and what of others' views? When using concepts like 'many people say', who are those people? Have you asked every reader of Abnett? And why does it matter? Why does it matter that there should be a fixed, single concept of canon or what is 'right'? (which is partly the reason I created this thread)

 

Hence, I challenged you on this because it seems you are arguing pejoratively - Abnett's writing isn't 'right', because it doesn't represent what you think it should. I'm not denying the validity of the term, but rather how it is used   

 

Which is why (a) I tried to place Abnett within an evolving history of 40K, which he has been a key creative, influencing and influenced figure, and (b) I suggest Fuller's ideas of 'fan fiction', where we see changes, translations and interpretation as the consistent element of adaptation, which for a thing like 40K is perfect, since everything the community makes is fan fiction, including what people build and paint. It also means that saying an Abnettverse or ABDverse or Adeptusverse is bad (because it misses something) is an empty value judgement, rather than just a delight of an individual's creation and contribution to a shelf of knowledge (& why I don't care for people's complaints about multilaser marines ;) ). 'Fanfiction' as an increasingly valid creative term could validate your use of the term, where (to quote Fuller) 'It's up to me to make that story fresh for the audience that's tuning into this program, but it also becomes a fan fiction of sorts'. But not saying that it is true because an imaginary or imagined suggestion of 'most people' believe it to be so. 

[Adeptus]

Without getting too much more into it, I've never said that the Abnettverse is bad or wrong. It just is. 

 

I also disagree with the notion of fanfiction as it applies to studio work and black library stories, since it implies separation of canon and 'other'. IMO, everything is canon. And nothing is canon. It's interesting to explore GW literature (well, all literature really) through the various contexts such as canon/fanfiction, death of the author, etc. While GW might state that some things are canon and others are not, that doesn't really matter. Once they publish it, it's out there, and it belongs to all of us to interpret and filter it as we wish. So in essence, it's ALL fanfiction. And none of it is. I too, have no problem with multilaser marines, and one of my favourite GW stories is Ian Watson's Inquisition War.

 

The Abnettverse is a shorthand way of quickly interpreting stories written by, or inspired by Dan Abnett. A reader often has some confusing moments as characters don't act like he might expect, or the depiction of bureaucracy doesn't match what he's been told, or whatever, and once the Abnettverse is explained to him he is more easily able to interpret the text within the context of it's author. It's been a common issue for many* readers over the years, which is why the term came into existence.

 

*A lot & many: While you're right that to be academically rigorous terms like "a lot" and "many" aren't particularly useful, I don't really have the time or motivation to be more thorough or exacting. A casual google of the term will tell you that it's in fairly common use.

[Claws and Effect]

I would say that the simple fact that a new term was coined to describe it is indicative that it's a real thing.

 

If it didn't exist, there would be no need to have a term specifically describing it. We would just call them "books by Dan Abnett".

[Donkey Kong]

I think the most important factor in defining the "Abnettverse" is setting, or rather proximity. Abnett was one of, if not the most prolific Black Library authors. But, the Gaunt's Ghosts Books (thirteen going on fourteen), plus short stories, plus spinoffs and background books (The Sabbat Worlds Crusade, Tactica Imperialis, Double Eagle, Titanicus), plus anthologies edited by Abnett all take place in a singular conflict in a singular corner of the 40K universe.

 

My perceived problem with the Abnettverse as it's understood in this way is that the sensibilities from Abnett's characters, for better or worse, bleed into the rest of the universe.

[Marshal Rohr]

You can't 'Everything is a Lie' away Primaris Marines. Or the Sundered Imperium. Or Reborn Guilliman. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

You can't 'Everything is a Lie' away Primaris Marines. Or the Sundered Imperium. Or Reborn Guilliman. 

 

Really?  -= Looks at his painting table, where there is nary a Primaris Marine in sight. =-  You sure about that?

[Bulwyf]

Canon is whatever you want it to be. Best examples I can use are what Disney did with Star Wars by saying anything before that last movie is no longer "official" despite it being "official" for 40 years or so and GW nuking Warhammer Fantasy because of IP lawyers telling GW to rename their races to avoid fake GW models.

 

I refuse to do either. My Star Wars is still the old one where Han and Leia had kids, one turned to the dark side, Bobba Fett became the Mandalorian leader, etc. My Warhammer Fantasy is not that dreadful abomination of AoS but the best fantasy setting ever created by mankind in the Old World and old Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

 

I choose what I want out of everything published/created to make of it what I want in that setting. Everything is simply a perception of what the viewer innately wants to see, regardless of if the viewer is aware of it or not.

[Azekai]

Canon is whatever you want it to be...

I choose what I want out of everything published/created to make of it what I want in that setting. Everything is simply a perception of what the viewer innately wants to see, regardless of if the viewer is aware of it or not.

Agreed. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Figuring out what is cannon doesn't matter, because it is all make-believe. Some stories are good, others are garbage, and I am the ultimate arbitrator of what I want to focus on or eschew. None of this is real, and I think people would do well to remember that.

 

 

[Brother Sefiel]

Hi
 

You can't 'Everything is a Lie' away Primaris Marines. Or the Sundered Imperium. Or Reborn Guilliman. 

 

Can't we?

My forces have never encountered them on the tabletop, and won't as long as I never play 8th. They are only as "real" as the female marines that I've seen armies of.

Perhaps less real, because fake reality appears to be subjective.

[Adeptus]

Re: Primaris. In my interpretation of the lore, Primaris are lesser marines, churned out en-masse by a heretical tech priest as a stop-gap measure. Rumours of their height and strength are greatly exaggerated, Imperial propaganda.

[Petitioner's City]

Without getting too much more into it, I've never said that the Abnettverse is bad or wrong. It just is. 

 

I also disagree with the notion of fanfiction as it applies to studio work and black library stories, since it implies separation of canon and 'other'. IMO, everything is canon. And nothing is canon. It's interesting to explore GW literature (well, all literature really) through the various contexts such as canon/fanfiction, death of the author, etc. While GW might state that some things are canon and others are not, that doesn't really matter. Once they publish it, it's out there, and it belongs to all of us to interpret and filter it as we wish. So in essence, it's ALL fanfiction. And none of it is. I too, have no problem with multilaser marines, and one of my favourite GW stories is Ian Watson's Inquisition War.

 

The Abnettverse is a shorthand way of quickly interpreting stories written by, or inspired by Dan Abnett. A reader often has some confusing moments as characters don't act like he might expect, or the depiction of bureaucracy doesn't match what he's been told, or whatever, and once the Abnettverse is explained to him he is more easily able to interpret the text within the context of it's author. It's been a common issue for many* readers over the years, which is why the term came into existence.

 

*A lot & many: While you're right that to be academically rigorous terms like "a lot" and "many" aren't particularly useful, I don't really have the time or motivation to be more thorough or exacting. A casual google of the term will tell you that it's in fairly common use.

 

Yeah, I agree (and I do use the term, to be slightly contrarian, although sometimes I critique myself) - I just worried it came from the same place as those reddit threads who critique this idea of Abnett's writing as not proper. But thank you for understanding what I meant - sorry to be so full-on! I like it when BL doesn't act like the tabletop, or is more like what's poss with RPGs, Inquisitor or Necromunda/Gorkamorka-level gaming. 

[Arkangilos]

This is where we disagree. There are things that are official and canon, such as the fact that Primaris Marines exist, space marines exist, space marines have geneseed, and Primarchs exist.

 

Saying, "well it's not canon, they don't exist because I say they don't" is like saying that the Emperor doesn't exist, and that entire factions are just made up.

 

They aren't. They do exist in the universe, and all the wanting in the world doesn't change that.

 

This, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" is nothing more than someone who didn't get what they wanted so they choose to take it out on people who like consistency. Frankly it's stupid.

 

Where canon is more open to interpretation is the details. That's where the different verses come in (abnetteverse, for example). The Primaris exist as much as the Primarchs and Eldar do, that's not up for official debate (what you choose to say exists is up to you, but you are wrong in the grand scheme). How the Primaris think, behave, act, their loyalties, etc. those are up for interpretation. Another example is what the Legion of the Damned are.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Speaking as one of the people who, in your phrasing, is "wrong," I for one know that I'm wrong and accept it.  I stick with my incorrect attitude because the idea and execution of Primaris were both horrendously dumb.  There are lots of other things that are published in official documents that I absolutely refuse to accept too. . . such as almost the entirely of Eye of Medusa because the events and details contained therein are also hideously idiotic and -- as far as I'm concerned -- have no place in "my" 40K.

[Petitioner's City]

But I also think we interact with a game where players' models are entirely 'fan fiction' and engage in 'fan fiction' events which are not or cannot be canonical; yet form personal narratives. How do the texts of the books or codices or rule.books or source books relate to these?

[Claws and Effect]

But I also think we interact with a game where players' models are entirely 'fan fiction' and engage in 'fan fiction' events which are not or cannot be canonical; yet form personal narratives. How do the texts of the books or codices or rule.books or source books relate to these?

They don't.

 

Or rather, they are as canon relevant as your Forgotten Realms D&D campaign is to RA Salvatore's books.

 

Your Blood Angels vs Orks campaign is your own personal canon. Black Library has established a canon. Now you can have the BL canon affect yours if you like, but yours will never have any bearing on BL's.

 

When it comes to our gaming or fan fiction, we can accept or discard the majority of the canon however we please. But some things are set in stone. If your canon says the Emperor never existed then your canon is fundamentally not 40k.

[Arkangilos]

Speaking as one of the people who, in your phrasing, is "wrong," I for one know that I'm wrong and accept it. I stick with my incorrect attitude because the idea and execution of Primaris were both horrendously dumb. There are lots of other things that are published in official documents that I absolutely refuse to accept too. . . such as almost the entirely of Eye of Medusa because the events and details contained therein are also hideously idiotic and -- as far as I'm concerned -- have no place in "my" 40K.

I just want to add I'm not saying that being wrong is a bad thing. For example, I chose to ignore the Swallow BA books until there was an actual canon override of them. I was 'wrong' until they fixed the BA lore and made the Swallow books not happen.

 

My point isn't to say that I don't think people can't ignore it, just people cannot claim their headcannon as truth. There are certain facts that exist, and choosing to ignore them doesn't make it not exist in the universe when the universe is shared.

 

Besides, my whole comment was mostly directed at this:

 

 

 

Canon is whatever you want it to be...

I choose what I want out of everything published/created to make of it what I want in that setting. Everything is simply a perception of what the viewer innately wants to see, regardless of if the viewer is aware of it or not.

Agreed. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Figuring out what is cannon doesn't matter, because it is all make-believe. Some stories are good, others are garbage, and I am the ultimate arbitrator of what I want to focus on or eschew. None of this is real, and I think people would do well to remember that.

 

Both statements are wrong. Canon is whatever the official fluff says it is, and consistency is not foolish, especially in a shared universe.

[Bryan Blaire]

Canon is whatever you want it to be.

Unfortunately this is incorrect. What is canon can only be set by those in authority to actually determine what is canon (even in religion this is the case). I'm not sure why this keeps coming up, but it really is a silly idea. Canon is set by the authority figure for the material in question (in fictional works, this is generally the IP owner, but depending on contract, might be a licensee, etc.) because it is what is determined to be "official".

 

If I write a book series, and books 1-4 come out first, and then seven years later write a book 5 that completely invalidates book 4, and I, as the only authoritative figure over my fictional universe say that only books 1-3 and 5 are canon, then only 1-3 and 5 are canon, no argument to be had. Is it a retcon? Of course. That doesn't make a difference. Do people like book 4 more than book 5? They might, but that doesn't make a difference. What I, as the author/owner of the IP have satiated is what is canon.

 

Do I have to state what is canon? No.

Do I have to resolve canon conflicts? No.

 

Does a fan have to like what is canon? Not at all (and in religion this is what often causes the formation of a splinter faith that takes a new authority over its followers on what the new faith says is canon - hard to do with fiction though).

 

But liking what the canon is doesn't change whether something is canon.

 

So far Star Wars, like it or not, Disney/LucasFilms gets to determine what is canon/officially going on in their universe. This can differ (and maybe even should differ depending on what you like) from what the fans want, but that doesn't stop the official material from being canon.

 

For 40K, we've been told that it is all canon, that canon is loose, etc. This is basically the "we are refusing to resolve inconsistencies" version, and it is GREAT!!! It means that you can pick and choose what elements of all the canon material you weave into your stories for yourself and you CAN'T be wrong. It also means that the next guy over who picks from different canon sources can't be wrong either, and neither of you are capable of being "more right" by any evaluative means, because it is ALL canon.

 

Obviously fan material (including your stories you tell yourself to justify your views if they disagree with canon) is never canon until an IP owner decides to incorporate it (and they can).

 

Don't make the mistake of assuming that all fictional universes must conform to your views of something like a "single legitimate storyline" or some other fictional universe's method of canon. They aren't required to. There are many, many methods of handling canon out there, and the method chosen to apply to one IP has :cuss all to do with a different IP.

 

Honestly, this is where the unreliable narrator is great, because it provides in- and out-of-universe reasons to choose to not use a canon story element in your own stories:

The story about how the Elf-Dwarf wars are equally as correct, no matter which side you take, you are standing on the side of canon.

 

While not as clearly unreliable (because it isn't stated and everyone may assume otherwise), the following can also be done:

"Primaris Marines are the true progeny of the Primarchs, better in all ways than standard Astartes" (well, that's a little flawed, because I don't believe that's an actual written canonical line in official text) can be equally as true as "Primaris Marines are just standard Marines in upgraded armor with new weapons" can be equally as true as "Primaris Marines are a total lie" on your tabletop.

 

That's what unreliable narrators more clearly allow you to do.

 

Now if you get huffy and expect GW to do something else and demand more consistency, well, you'll probably be waiting a while, because I don't think they are likely to capitulate to your demands.

[Donkey Kong]

For 40K, we've been told that it is all canon, that canon is loose, etc. This is basically the "we are refusing to resolve inconsistencies" version, and it is GREAT!!! It means that you can pick and choose what elements of all the canon material you weave into your stories for yourself and you CAN'T be wrong. It also means that the next guy over who picks from different canon sources can't be wrong either, and neither of you are capable of being "more right" by any evaluative means, because it is ALL canon.

 

 

I don't see how this refutes "canon is whatever you want it to be."

[Bryan Blaire]

I don't see how this refutes "canon is whatever you want it to be."

Because canon is not "whatever you want it to be", it's "all of it" for 40K. If it came from an official 40K source, it's canon, whether you choose to use it in your stories or not.

 

Your choice doesn't invalidate its canonicity.

[Claws and Effect]

If it has ever been printed in an official 40k release it is canon.

 

If you wrote it yourself it isn't canon for anyone but you.

 

I could write a story in which the Raven Guard fall to Chaos and become worshippers of Malal. But it isn't canon for anyone but me.

 

Unless GW sees it and decided to put it in their official storyline. Which is unlikely to say the least.