The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Bulwyf]

Canon is whatever you want it to be. You can disagree, certainly, but you are simply stating your opinion. In my canon Warhammer fantasy is still the Old World and that rich, almost forty year world and the abomination of AoS does not exist. At all. Star Wars is everything before the travesty of that horrible movie and Disney retconning everything.

 

I get to decide for myself what I consider canon or not just as someone else can take whatever the company questions states is canon as gospel truth.

[Adeptus]

Canon, where canon is taken to mean objective in-universe truth, is totally up to the reader. The author of any given text may have intentions with regards to possible interpretations of their work, but ultimately that's irrelevant. Each reader can interpret the text however they wish. Some interpretations may requite more... "interesting" trains of thought, but the simple fact that the author never intended for a certain thing doesn't make that particular reading invalid.

 

Thus, canon IS whatever you interpret it to be.

[Wargamer]

Okay, let's all get something clear here:

 

Canon is not decided by the reader. It's decided by the author. The Expanded Universe is not canon because the owners of Star Wars said as much. Now, if there are discrepancies in varying official sources you can argue canon (ie: we're told Star Trek Discovery is original timeline, but the creators don't have the rights to create original timeline content, suggesting it's actually the JJverse). However, you can't just say "x is not canon because I don't like it!"

 

And if you don't like canon, that's fine. I don't like canon. I refuse to accept the idea female Marines aren't a thing because A) the explanations for why have always been utterly stupid, B ) the more recent attempts to "clarify" the official explanations are equally stupid, and C) having female Marines gives us a whole lot more options for writing stories, converting cool models and making sweet artwork.

Now the same thing can be said for, say, Chaos Grey Knights - an idea I would not support. One could argue this is one of the reasons canon is needed; to stop people arguing over what is and is not allowed in a setting. That said, it's been pretty obvious ever since 3rd (if not before) that 40K fans really, really want to be able to do their own thing and take the setting in their own direction - something a restrictive canon does not support.

The point is that you can argue all you like about what should or should not be allowed in canon, or what your personal "headcanon" contains, but your fanfiction is not canon. Canon is what GW tells you it is, not the other way around.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Wargamer

[Bryan Blaire]

Wargamer has said it all.

 

Canon is not "objective in-universe" - canon is what "officially happened in the universe". The key word there being "officially". Anyone that can't officially speak for a work doesn't have any say on whether something is canon.

 

Canon is also not what a reader subjectively decides that something means based on interpretation (interpretation is subjective, not objective). What a fan decides for themselves has absolutely no weight on the official content (or futures official content) of a product line.

 

Do you have to like it? No. I don't particularly care for any Star Trek products after DS9. Does that mean anything about whether the new movies are canon, official in-universe things? Nope.

[Bulwyf]

This has become a back and forth of "canon is gospel truth!" or "canon is what you want it to be". If everyone agreed canon is one way then there'd be no argument..so clearly canon is whatever you individually want it to be. I don't really see the point of going back and forth. Clearly people have their own opinions and have expressed them to their best of their abilities. No need to continue the circle.

[Adeptus]

No, that's your definition of canon. Canon is a religious term used as shorthand by various fanbases to describe in-universe objective truths. But there ARE no objective truths when it comes to fictional universes (and precious few ones in the real universe). Canon, where that term means the actual truth as it relates to 40k, is defined not by GW, but by the reader.

[Bryan Blaire]

No, that's your definition of canon.

:facepalm:

 

The "generally accepted view of canon in fiction": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

 

The idea that canon wouldn't be "gospel truth" considering the origin of the term is a pretty funny subjective interpretation. And the argument that "Clearly because I disagree, my stated belief on an issue relying on that disagreement proves that I'm correct" hasn't ever been convincing to the opposing party.

 

I've tried to turn this back to the actual topic of unreliable narrators a couple of times, because the fact that canon material has been written in an unreliable way, it allows you to agree or disagree with the written canon and still be "in the right", because the writing itself throws doubt on what the truth really is. It allows multiple inherently oppositional viewpoints as well as minor discrepancies to all exist within the official material and all be "right".

[Mileposter]

I wrote a much longer post, but got ninja'd and said differently by other posters. Rather than simply repeat what's been said before, I'll simply add an agreement to posts I'm about to hit the 'like' on, and pop a anecdotal question that reading the thread again has me asking.

 

Isn't this the reason dictionaries exist?

[Adeptus]

 

No, that's your definition of canon.

 

The "generally accepted view of canon in fiction": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

 

The idea that canon wouldn't be "gospel truth" considering the origin of the term is a pretty funny subjective interpretation. And the argument that "Clearly because I disagree, my stated belief on an issue relying on that disagreement proves that I'm correct" hasn't ever been convincing to the opposing party.

 

I've tried to turn this back to the actual topic of unreliable narrators a couple of times, because the fact that canon material has been written in an unreliable way, it allows you to agree or disagree with the written canon and still be "in the right", because the writing itself does doubt on what the truth really is. It allows multiple inherently oppositional viewpoints as well as minor discrepancies to all exist within the official material and all be "right".

 

I'm about to head off to work so I won't have time for a long reply, but I encourage you to look into the work of Roland Barthes, particularly his "death of the author" paper, and consider how post-modernist views of authorship might be applied to GW literature.

 

Also consider that while 'canon' is taken to mean 'truth', that both you and I can interpret vastly different truths from the same piece of text. Indeed, our truths could be completely opposite, and mutually exclusive, but both be true at the same time!

[Wargamer]

People appear to be confusing a lack of confirmed canon with a lack of canon.

 

Canon is not set in stone. It can change. It can even be thrown out if the creator so chooses. An example of this would be Captain Kirk's middle name. The original series gave him the middle initial "R", but by Undiscovered Country he was being introduced as James Tiberius Kirk.

 

Was this a mistake? No. It was a change of canon. His name was James R. Kirk until it was not.

 

40k has plenty of things like this as well. The canon of races, of locations, of technology and events have all changed over time. This isn't just unreliable author syndrome - many of these changes are very clearly intended to be fixed and final. After all, there is nothing to suggest the Ultramarines ever had a half-Eldar chief librarian, or that Noise Marines use combi bolter-guitars and dress like hair metal bands. Yet at one point both of these things were canon.

 

It's important that you recognise the difference between not knowing what is canon, not being told the "true" canon due to unreliable narration, and there being no true canon.

[Shinespider]

I really don't think your argument has any standing. 

 

Canon, in the traditional meaning, isn't "Truth," it's "Truth as laid forth by the religious authorities" The Catholic church (or whoever else, for the various canons) has absolute authority to determine what is and isn't canon within their church, period.

 

In a broader fictional sense, canon refers to "Truth as laid forth by *insert the author here*". There's plenty of room for alternate interpretation, argument, and DotA conversations, but "canon" is not the word you're looking for to describe these things. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Shinespider

[Ishagu]

Ahhh,glad that circular arguments don't always have me at the centre :-D

 

PS: Canon is the official lore

[Heliomanes]

No, the term canon and its implications has evolved and has multiple meanings, even within the history of the church there's a huge difference between how the term was used by the early church fathers and the medieval usage, for instance. I think it is more fruitful to consider "canon" in this instance to be a folk term refering to either a "correct interpretation" or "generally held to be correct interpretation". The only difference between them is that the former leaves the source of authority open, while the latter seeks to validate its interpretation in popular belief. The truth of the matter seems to be that there are no authoritative sources in a true fandom, just various interpretations. Even the authors aren't necessarily the final arbiters on this, as any work of art should outlive and move beyond their conception and interact with its audience through interpretation - and thus become living things, which are much more engaging than their static counterparts.

[Claws and Effect]

Okay. 

 

I can write any random piece of fan fiction and say "This is canon." 

 

GW, being the owners of the IP I wrote my fan fiction within, can then say "Okay, we'll go with it" OR "No, that's not canon at all".  

 

They aren't going to say "If you say it is, then it is." 

 

The great thing about the 40k universe is that Games Workshop has left us a HUGE blank slate to work with. Even in their own official canon they've left room. Look at some of the larger official canon conflicts that have taken place. If there are many Chapters of Space Marines involved, they will often say "Elements of 12 different Chapters", but only specify 6 or 7 of them. That leaves you room to insert your homebrew Chapter into a canon conflict without breaking the canon, because it can just be assumed that your Chapter was one of the ones they didn't specify. 

 

GW's version of "canon" isn't "This is what happened.". It's more like "This is more or less what happened according to a historical archive that may or may not have been written by a reliable source." 

 

There is very little in 40k lore that Games Workshop has completely set in stone. The Heresy happened, the Emperor is sitting on the Throne, Slaanesh was created by Eldar debauchery, there are 4 major Chaos gods. Basically just the really major events that shape the universe. The details of the smaller events are more fluid, and they give us plenty of room to insert our own creations that can exist right alongside the official canon without disturbing it in any way. 

 

Don't like Primaris or Guilliaman being back? Set your stuff before that happened. There's no rule that says everything you do has to be happening in the "current" time. 

[Bryan Blaire]

While "official material" can be produced, it's the only "authoritative source", all others being those that aren't official. If it isn't official, it can't be canon, that would be akin to fan-fiction or unlicensed work, which holds no authoritative value (and depending on how distributed, could violate IP law).

 

I think people are trying too hard to conflate "objective truth" with "official/authoritative material" or indicate tha "interpretation" is somehow canon.

 

Canon may not tell you the literal 100% objective fact of anything. We have three different canonical views of the Elf-Dwarf war. These are all equally canonical and are the gospel truth with regards to their officiality. All three of them are official stories of this war, they happened in the fictional universe. Are any of them "true" with regards to how a completely indifferent and objective observer may have viewed the event if they were there to witness it? Very unlikely. As I said before, even in our real world, getting all the exact same information from multiple witnesses to an event is extremely difficult (and unexpected to the extent that law enforcement often looks suspiciously at witness accounts that are almost or completely identical).

 

So again, unreliable narrators allow for a development of internally differing stories that are equally canonical, and are all true canon within the universe. They are all the "gospel" by the producer. Interpretations are not canonical, headcanon isn't actual canon, none of those are officially produced works.

 

Don't try and apply the "rules of canon" of one fictional universe or our scientific or philosophical understanding of our universe to a different fictional universe. It's doomed to failure. The only canon rules for a fictional universe are those established by the authoritative entity over that universe, and those rules don't magically require "objective truthful" internally consistent writings.

[Damo1701]

I've read this thread from the start, and only now decided that I have something I would like to put out there.

 

Now, as far as I know, anything and everything released from Games Workshop and its subsidiaries is official canon.  There is no disputing that.

At the same time, none of it is canon, because GW has decided not to resolve conflicting sources.

 

So, this leaves us with a setting where everything published has/will/has not/will not have happened.

 

Where does this leave us, the consumers of this fiction?

 

Exactly as we appear.  Discussing our favourite/hated aspects of the rich and fairly old universe we all love.

 

Those in the Raven Guard forums, and possible other members may know the back story for my Raven Guard.  Basically, it's set between the aftermath of Istvaan V and general adoption of the Codex Astartes. 

 

This means I limit myself on what I can take, make far more use of the older HH era models, and have to represent some things that I can't afford with their 40k equivalents, or, they are new pieces of equipment, rather than the relics they may be in the 41st millennium.

 

So, no, Primaris don't exist for my Raven Guard, but, I could convert some inceptors into assault marines, and use them as the Raptors, either before or after the spiking of the genetic material.  The same could be said for Intercessors.  They are Raptors with Bolt Guns.  I would just need to order some MK VI heads.  Normal marine profiles, but larger because of how they were created.

 

I think the point I am trying to make here is that the length of time we are given, just over 10,000 years, is plenty of time for us to decide where our armies fall, what are the conditions in the Galaxy like, and who, if any, is around in the Primarch sense.

 

Arguing over which author is a god-like or daemonic-spawn to the setting in general strikes me as picking a fight over nothing.  We have plenty of space to ignore or accept whatever GW give us.

 

Now, publishing a codex from the viewpoint of that faction would be far better than giving the Imperial/omnipotent viewer perspective, and can create a whole new level for players, and, could even sell extra volumes to out of faction players, as they could see how that faction views itself.  Do the Orks view themselves as clumsy, comic characters, who just possess a low-instinctive cunning, or do they view themselves differently?  For example.

 

Heck, if people want an "Imperial Scholar" view, publish another book.  GW are looking for new ways to make money, why not publish faction viewpoints?

[Bryan Blaire]

At the same time, none of it is canon, because GW has decided not to resolve conflicting sources.

This is the only thing I disagree with here - what about not resolving conflicting sources means that it isn't canon? We have multiple conflicting accounts of Earth historical events - would any of that be "not real" simply because they conflict? They all "really happened" - even if none of them are the objective truth, they all really happened as an occurrence in the life of the person that lived them.

 

Heck, if people want an "Imperial Scholar" view, publish another book. GW are looking for new ways to make money, why not publish faction viewpoints?

Hah! I would love that, especially if they could do them about other factions as well - have commentary from xenologists for the Imperium that have studied different entities, troopers that have fought them, etc. "How do the Necrons really view other races? Read from their own recovered and translated texts today!"

 

I also really like the idea of Primaris as Raptors!

[Damo1701]

 

At the same time, none of it is canon, because GW has decided not to resolve conflicting sources.

This is the only thing I disagree with here - what about not resolving conflicting sources means that it isn't canon? We have multiple conflicting accounts of Earth historical events - would any of that be "not real" simply because they conflict? They all "really happened" - even if none of them are the objective truth, they all really happened as an occurrence in the life of the person that lived them.

 

If I'm honest, I'm just looking at WH40K.

 

GW has said that, by not "correcting" published material, the idea is that all, and none of it should be considered canon.  I know that IRL, there have been conflicting accounts of real events, you just need to look at the criminal justice system to see that.  However, isn't there an argument for "what you believe eventually becomes the truth"  I mean, without going into specifics, it's something rulers and politicians have been using to keep their places. But, that is dangerous territory, so I'll pull back from that.

 

At the end of the day, a large portion of this topic has been about the views and interpretations of us, the consumers over the views authors, designers, and others have brought to the Galaxy of 40K, and how those publications jibe with our own views based on an amalgamation of loyalist/heretic, human/xenos human responses into alien minds and so on.

 

I, for example, love the Ghosts novels, as well as Abnett's HH writing, because they inject a micro-view of the "Human" element into a galaxy we are constantly told is inimical to Humanity in general.  The fact Gaunt mourns ever Ghost that falls but orders them to their deaths all the same.  The way he managed to pull me into Horus, Warmaster of the Imperium, noble son of the Emperor and loved father of his legion, and the tragedy of how Horus Rising ended, and the beginning of the Heresy was formed.

 

By the same token, ADB's portrayal of Khârn is a masterpiece, and Angron's interactions with his legion as well as the humans that serve him, the way he wrote the remembrancers out of the World Eaters was funny, and gave an interesting view into the tortured Primarch.

 

Something older?  The Ian Watson Inquisitor series, I picked it up when it was republished as a trilogy, and thoroughly enjoyed it.  It's odd, different, but a great way to look at building an RPG.

 

I still read what 2nd edition Material I have on occasion, which has largely been superseded, but, is enjoyable nonetheless.

 

I wish I still had all of my 2nd edition era material from everything that was released, but, growing up and house-moves meant much of it was lost over the years.  Some of it has been "replaced" now, but, then again, who is to say which version is the canon version?  GW, who have also said there was no Canon, just lots of stories...

[Claws and Effect]

I read some fan fiction on 1d4chan that touched on both unreliable narration and the question of what is or isn't canon. You might have seen it, the Warhammer High alternate timeline setting.

 

It's actually a fairly well written piece of fanfic that bears little resemblance to the 40k we know. It explores a question we've all probably pondered at some point. Namely, "What if the Heresy had never happened"?

 

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about it, but it's a good example of something that is totally not canon, yet respects canon enough to make it seem sort of plausible.

 

The unreliable narrator facet comes in with various characters' recollection of the Great Crusade. It offers enough different viewpoints of the same events to let you piece together what the "truth" probably is.

 

Basically, it has a branching off point shortly after the Crusade. Kor Phaeron is killed before he can corrupt Lorgar and subsequently, Horus. The official canon carries on like it always had and the writer shows us an alternate timeline. Kind of like the old What If issues Marvel used to do.

 

My point kind of got lost, but it's essentially that canon or non-canon is only relevant if you are writing something FOR the owners of an IP. Any other time you are free to accept or reject any canon material you like. Except rejecting it doesn't make it no longer canon. You've simply decided you don't care.

[Donkey Kong]

 

My point kind of got lost, but it's essentially that canon or non-canon is only relevant if you are writing something FOR the owners of an IP. Any other time you are free to accept or reject any canon material you like. Except rejecting it doesn't make it no longer canon. You've simply decided you don't care.

 

 

 

 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That's where I am now in terms of 40k fluff. The difference is, when I don't care, and the very nature of 40k Loose Canon encourages me to not care, I have no incentive to go out and pick up books because they won't add to my understanding of the setting, and I used to forgive books I didn't like if they had something I found interesting. For instance, and sacrilege I know, I didn't like A Thousand Sons/ Prospero Burns, but I liked the psychic robot operator and I liked aspects of the Kasper Hawser character. So, I've gone from buying one to three books a month, including ones I wasn't interested in beforehand and didn't enjoy reading, to one every several months when something gets glowing reviews. At the same time, BL is supposedly reporting record sales, so what do I know?

[Bryan Blaire]

That's where I am now in terms of 40k fluff.

 

At the same time, BL is supposedly reporting record sales, so what do I know?

You must know the same thing I do, because it sounds like we're pretty much in the same place...

[Ishagu]

40k lore is pretty awesome since 8th edition :-)

[Azekai]

40k lore is pretty awesome since 8th edition :-)

[CANONICAL CITATION NEEDED]

 

 

 

 

 

^{I'm just kidding kinda}

[Bryan Blaire]

40k lore is pretty awesome since 8th edition :-)

Ishagu, that was amazing! In a one-line comment, you completely brought the thread back around to the original topic by illustrating a fantastic display of the unreliable narrator! :tu: :tu:

[D3L]

 

40k lore is pretty awesome since 8th edition :-)

Ishagu, that was amazing! In a one-line comment, you completely brought the thread back around to the original topic by illustrating a fantastic display of the unreliable narrator!

 

savage,

 

but deserved :D