The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Adeptus]

Why does it matter what GW says is canon? They can't force our interpretations of their literature. If I say that the Emperor is purely propaganda, never existed, and all lore surrounding him is a lie by Imperial forces to calm the masses, can GW say I'm wrong? And if they can, should I care?

Edited September 8, 2017 by Adeptus

[Bryan Blaire]

It really doesn't at all unless you specifically want to follow "official"/"canon" material in your army or writing, or specifically want to discuss the canon storyline.

 

As soon as you diverge into "don't care" territory, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

I have personally never understood why, in a predominantly creative/artistic hobby, so many people would want to abide so much by the "officially created" content, but it is very important to some people.

 

As far as what you enjoy personally, whether something is canon on not only matters to your enjoyment of you feel it does (a sentiment I really don't understand, why would whether something is official affect your enjoyment?).

[gideon stargreave]

The people over at Iron Sleet are masters at understanding, the unreliable narrator aspect of warhammer, how it expands the story, enriches it, so they can go about carving a setting, exploring the universe

[Arkangilos]

It really doesn't at all unless you specifically want to follow "official"/"canon" material in your army or writing, or specifically want to discuss the canon storyline.

 

As soon as you diverge into "don't care" territory, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

I have personally never understood why, in a predominantly creative/artistic hobby, so many people would want to abide so much by the "officially created" content, but it is very important to some people.

 

As far as what you enjoy personally, whether something is canon on not only matters to your enjoyment of you feel it does (a sentiment I really don't understand, why would whether something is official affect your enjoyment?).

I just like consistency. Like it you make your own chapter, I would like it to at least be consistent with the universe so I can feel like it belongs next to mine. Is this saying I think it should be 100 percent codex? No, because it's a big galaxy and variations do exist. Should it (in my mind) have a consistent and lore friendly way around that? Yeah.

 

Extreme cases that I definitely dislike and can never see with mine would be female space marines, so if I play someone I know their army doesn't actually exist, and my chapter isn't really fighting them. But then that leaves the awkward thing, now we aren't sharing a universe anymore because until official canon says otherwise, there are zero female space marines. Now it's just two toy armies fighting instead of a good story.

 

 

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331925-could-sanguinius-come-back/page-10?do=findComment&comment=4880713

 

This page is a prime example...

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Brother Sefiel]

Hello

 

I just like consistency. Like it you make your own chapter, I would like it to at least be consistent with the universe so I can feel like it belongs next to mine.

I would definitely feel the same way if GW's stuff had _actually been consistent_. Since it keeps contradicting itself/changing, I prefer a reason for the continual revisions, and an Orwellian take on 40k works just fine for that.

[Bryan Blaire]

I just like consistency.

While an admirable want in some situations, canon for 40K does not require or provide consistency. That is the very nature of the "unreliable narrator" concept involved in the setting.

 

I don't want to put words in A D-B's mouth or misquote him, but he provided another quote by Marc Gascoigne that specifically shows that while there may be common elements to canon BL/GW stories, the desire that GW generate a setting explanation where everything will automatically be 100% consistent at all times is a flawed desire and not something that GW is seeking to do:

 

 

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.)

 

 

To quote Marc Gascoigne:

 

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."

So while you may crave consistency, even like Brother Sefiel said, 40K isn't intended to be inherently consistent.

 

Obviously there are some details that remain "true" at all times, but even details about those details are going to be hazy and open to interpretation, because they seem meant to be.

 

That's why I keep saying "Don't try to project onto 40K your desires for a canonical working that is based on your desires, the methods of a different fictional universe, or a need for 100% objective truth." That isn't what the setting is trying to do. Asking for the setting to do that is akin to asking gravity to cease pulling you to Earth while you walk on it's surface - it isn't going to happen.

 

Like it you make your own chapter, I would like it to at least be consistent with the universe so I can feel like it belongs next to mine.

Here's the issue I see with that: I may not intend my fan-created Chapter to feel like it belongs next to yours (truthfully, I likely won't even acknowledge the existence of your fan-made Chapter in writings or games involving my fan-made Chapter, no matter how well done yours might be and how poorly done mine might be), nor do I feel like I have any burden to limit myself to trying to do that. GW doesn't make that requirement, my friends don't, and I don't, so truthfully no one has the right or capability to demand that of me. You can request it or like it, but there is no obligation for anyone to comply with that. That is the beauty of GW's 40K setting - multiple interpretations and visions are all allowed and, in the end, none of them are really "wrong" in any kind of empirical sense.

 

Now it's just two toy armies fighting instead of a good story.

Two toy armies fighting on the tabletop is all it ever is, regardless of the story, or the story's quality. Honestly, fighting something you didn't expect to see on the tabletop allows MORE freedom to craft a good story, not less. Maybe your Chapter is finding out about the lies that the Imperium has told, and how will it deal with that after the battle is done. Perhaps it opens the eyes of the Apothecaries and Chapter Master, or maybe it hardens the Chapter Master's resolve to cleanse the universe of this evil blight that obviously the Imperium kept conceals all this time. Perhaps those aren't Marines at all, but demons given the form of Marines, and due to their foul deception, exceeding the need of the usual zealous destruction by true servants of the Emperor, and then none of the Chapter will speak of this again.

 

It's actually as interesting a story possibility, if not more interesting, than something that simply explains why Company Blah-Blah of the Ultramarines is fighting Chapter Blah-Blah of the Imperial Fists again.

[Ishagu]

It's a goos thing Guilliman has returned and has ordered the strict recording of history, dates and events :-P

[Arkangilos]

 

I just like consistency.

While an admirable want in some situations, canon for 40K does not require or provide consistency. That is the very nature of the "unreliable narrator" concept involved in the setting.

 

I don't want to put words in A D-B's mouth or misquote him, but he provided another quote by Marc Gascoigne that specifically shows that while there may be common elements to canon BL/GW stories, the desire that GW generate a setting explanation where everything will automatically be 100% consistent at all times is a flawed desire and not something that GW is seeking to do:

 

 

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.)

 

To quote Marc Gascoigne:

 

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."

So while you may crave consistency, even like Brother Sefiel said, 40K isn't intended to be inherently consistent.

 

Obviously there are some details that remain "true" at all times, but even details about those details are going to be hazy and open to interpretation, because they seem meant to be.

 

That's why I keep saying "Don't try to project onto 40K your desires for a canonical working that is based on your desires, the methods of a different fictional universe, or a need for 100% objective truth." That isn't what the setting is trying to do. Asking for the setting to do that is akin to asking gravity to cease pulling you to Earth while you walk on it's surface - it isn't going to happen.

 

Like it you make your own chapter, I would like it to at least be consistent with the universe so I can feel like it belongs next to mine.

Here's the issue I see with that: I may not intend my fan-created Chapter to feel like it belongs next to yours (truthfully, I likely won't even acknowledge the existence of your fan-made Chapter in writings or games involving my fan-made Chapter, no matter how well done yours might be and how poorly done mine might be), nor do I feel like I have any burden to limit myself to trying to do that. GW doesn't make that requirement, my friends don't, and I don't, so truthfully no one has the right or capability to demand that of me. You can request it or like it, but there is no obligation for anyone to comply with that. That is the beauty of GW's 40K setting - multiple interpretations and visions are all allowed and, in the end, none of them are really "wrong" in any kind of empirical sense.

 

Now it's just two toy armies fighting instead of a good story.

Two toy armies fighting on the tabletop is all it ever is, regardless of the story, or the story's quality. Honestly, fighting something you didn't expect to see on the tabletop allows MORE freedom to craft a good story, not less. Maybe your Chapter is finding out about the lies that the Imperium has told, and how will it deal with that after the battle is done. Perhaps it opens the eyes of the Apothecaries and Chapter Master, or maybe it hardens the Chapter Master's resolve to cleanse the universe of this evil blight that obviously the Imperium kept conceals all this time. Perhaps those aren't Marines at all, but demons given the form of Marines, and due to their foul deception, exceeding the need of the usual zealous destruction by true servants of the Emperor, and then none of the Chapter will speak of this again.

 

It's actually as interesting a story possibility, if not more interesting, than something that simply explains why Company Blah-Blah of the Ultramarines is fighting Chapter Blah-Blah of the Imperial Fists again.

No, but there are some consistencies. We know for a fact that space marines cannot be girls. We know for a fact that space marines are genetically altered super humans. We know that the Imperial Guard is the workhorse of their military. We know that the navy and the army is split after the HH. We know that the codex exists. THAT is what I am talking about.

 

There are some things we KNOW are canon, and those things ARE consistant until retconned. It's the details that are left open. For example, if your battlefleet and IG regiments are merged to become one entity, we know that according to canon, they are breaking the law. Is it possible? Yes, it's a huge galaxy. Does that mean the Imperium might take exception and send a force to remove the commander from command and restore the organization to how it should be? Yes. Or it might not even know it happened. But as players we can both admit that it's against the law.

 

And yes, I know it's just you armies, just like the novels you read are nothing more than words on paper. But you can still develope stories. The stories lose themselves when the words, pages, models, etc. don't fit together.

[Arkangilos]

Again, a prime example is the link to the thread I provided, where we had used seven editions of background material, a unifying thing for the Blood Angel army, and some bloke came in and started spewing about how all of us were wrong, and how we were the fools, and how Guilliman betrayed the emperor, etc.

 

But we know that none of those things are true.

[Bryan Blaire]

Actually, you don't "know", because what you have may not be accurate accounts. You are demanding objective truths when objective truths are exactly what GW is not writing. That's the whole nature of unreliable narration. Now, we can argue about just how unreliable things are, what should we take as truths, but to act like we know the full objective factuality of something is incorrect.

 

That's why I say "Don't try and apply rules for something where they haven't told you those rules apply." In the quote that you yourself quoted, someone involved in GW stated "the absolute truth will never be known because of this", and yet you are trying to apply consistencies as absolute truths.

 

It'd be like taking the writings of a Roman general that consistently writes about the weaknesses of the forms of battle of the Gauls because he always beat them and using them to state that it is an absolute truth that the Gauls had an inferior combat skill and wouldn't ever be victorious in battle against the Romans. It's not a great analogy, but it is apt, because by other writings, we know that the Gauls did beat them and even sacked Rome.

 

Maybe in 40K, we've just never seen the writings that show the "defeats" or "sackings", we're just seeing the general's consistent writings.

 

That's what the unreliable narrator does for a story.

 

It's a goos thing Guilliman has returned and has ordered the strict recording of history, dates and events :-P

It's a good thing that Guilliman is a fictional character - if he was written as a real person, he'd realize that knows :cuss all about how things actually work and his commands are doomed from the start - then he would be a smart little boy and all his sycophants would be too.

[Apothecary Vaddon]

It's not a great analogy, but it is apt, because by other writings, we know that the Gauls did beat them and even sacked Rome.

 

Maybe in 40K, we've just never seen the writings that show the "defeats" or "sackings", we're just seeing the general's consistent writings.

 

No, it's not great, and it's not really apt either, since we do see defeats and sackings in the lore...seems you've dumbed the argument down a little too far there.

[Arkangilos]

Actually, you don't "know", because what you have may not be accurate accounts. You are demanding objective truths when objective truths are exactly what GW is not writing. That's the whole nature of unreliable narration. Now, we can argue about just how unreliable things are, what should we take as truths, but to act like we know the full objective factuality of something is incorrect.

 

That's why I say "Don't try and apply rules for something where they haven't told you those rules apply." In the quote that you yourself quoted, someone involved in GW stated "the absolute truth will never be known because of this", and yet you are trying to apply consistencies as absolute truths.

 

It'd be like taking the writings of a Roman general that consistently writes about the weaknesses of the forms of battle of the Gauls because he always beat them and using them to state that it is an absolute truth that the Gauls had an inferior combat skill and wouldn't ever be victorious in battle against the Romans. It's not a great analogy, but it is apt, because by other writings, we know that the Gauls did beat them and even sacked Rome.

 

Maybe in 40K, we've just never seen the writings that show the "defeats" or "sackings", we're just seeing the general's consistent writings.

 

That's what the unreliable narrator does for a story.

 

 

It's a goos thing Guilliman has returned and has ordered the strict recording of history, dates and events :-P

It's a good thing that Guilliman is a fictional character - if he was written as a real person, he'd realize that knows :cuss all about how things actually work and his commands are doomed from the start - then he would be a smart little boy and all his sycophants would be too.

So does the codex astartes exist? Does Guilliman exist? Does the Emperor even exist?

[Ishagu]

Guys, 40K isn't Vanilla sky.

 

You're all entitled to ignore certain lore but it doesn't erase the fact it's there.

[Bryan Blaire]

Those are all good questions, Arkangilos. Based on what we've seen in the stories, something encompassing those names is presented, but is it the exact truth as written? Objectively I don't know, but we know what has been presented, while also knowing that what was written is potentially biased or misunderstood.

 

No, it's not great, and it's not really apt either, since we do see defeats and sackings in the lore...seems you've dumbed the argument down a little too far there.

Methinks you are taking it a little too literally. I was using it as a method to present the general concept of an unreliable account of events overall, not just focused on battles - we're not getting purely objective accounts with an attempt toward ultimate universal truth, we are getting an account of events - how truthful those are is up to the reader. Per statements, the canon writings are not meant as an absolute truth.

 

You're all entitled to ignore certain lore but it doesn't erase the fact it's there.

Correct, it is all canon (including the Ultramarines being a Third Founding Chapter, I believe it was). It is a fact that the lore was written. The veracity or objective truth of it is also not in doubt - there isn't any pure objective truth as written. The written lore could be biased, whether that bias is slight or great is all in the eye of the beholder.

[Ishagu]

The Ultras being third founding is clearly a retcon. There's a distinction there.

[Bryan Blaire]

The Ultras being third founding is clearly a retcon. There's a distinction there.

:facepalm: How can it be a retcon if it is all canon, if there is no absolute truth? For all we know, that writing itself was incorrect and the Ultramarines are actually 26th Founding. Perhaps there has simply been a misidentification in the records of the Ultramarines and misatribution of successes from the Iron Hands to the Ultramarines by a politically motivated senior Adept on Terra (maybe he came from Ultramar and believes that anything Ultramar is obviously more fantastic than things from lesser areas of the Galaxy). Maybe all of this has even been written by someone falling to Chaos to give the citizens of the Imperium false hope that they aren't about to be totally overrun.

 

In a land of no absolute truths, the ability to convincingly make an absolute statement fails and reverts to belief that the statements are true.

 

As an aside, this thread itself has been a fantastic display of how things can be written that people believe with absolute conviction is the truth (even myself - I'm pretty firmly convinced that my ideas on the subject of canon, 40K's subjective setting background, and a narrow view of the truth based on the statements of two people associated with 40K) and can display their biases while arguing that they have the truth. This one discussion on the unreliable narrator is almost a microcosm display of the type of biased discussion/writing that could be going on in any 40K reporting of events. I'm sure we Frater are all reading this and are biased to different sides through the lenses of our personal beliefs on the the topic, 40K, Internet discussion boards, world view, etc. It's actually a really fantastic occurrence, IMO, when you step back and look at it.

[Damo1701]

Wasn't Guilliman just a planetary commander, and not a Primarch?

 

Add to that the Ultras being third founding, and we have something awesome to watch explode...

 

Can't have everything and nothing as Canon..? Well, if you want Guilliman as a Primarch, you are actively choosing your own view of the Canon, which everybody is free to do.

 

All a retcon is, is altering previous Canon offerings in the attempt to sell more models. I mean, who would have bought a puffed up planetary governor model over a Primarch?

[Wargamer]

The way you spot a retcon is you look for the number of times that the claim is directly contradicted by later material. As a secondary indicator, you look for evidence of a blackout - of the element simply never being mentioned ever again.

 

In the case of the Ultramarines, every single publication from 3rd at the very least has stated they are a First Founding Legion. Not just the army books, but the Horus Heresy novels and other supplementary materials.

 

Ergo, this was either a mistake or a retcon. You can argue that the Space Wolves homeworld is Lucan all you like, but it's wrong.

[Arkangilos]

Because not everything is canon.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Every time mentions the word "canon," I mentally circle back around to that time ADB explained that there basically is no such thing as canon.

[Arkangilos]

I am willing to bet five bucks that he would say that ultramarines being a first founding is canon and not disputable.

 

I think this is a bad case of taking something someone says too far, further than intended.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Adeptus]

No, but there are some consistencies. We know for a fact that space marines cannot be girls. We know for a fact that space marines are genetically altered super humans. We know that the Imperial Guard is the workhorse of their military. We know that the navy and the army is split after the HH. We know that the codex exists. THAT is what I am talking about.

We each have to interpret the lore for ourselves. Canon, for each of us, might be totally different. Why can't there be female marines? Maybe the Imperium makes a big deal about women being incompatible with the process because they're a deeply male dominated society and are afraid of giving that much power and respect to women? Maybe not. There's layers (albeit not very many) to peel back and some deep reading to be done (although the depth of GW literature is usually fairly shallow) and nothing should be taken on face value. Simply accepting something as true and consistent because GW says it is is lazy reading, IMO.

[Arkangilos]

We have nothing to indicate that it is a male dominated society in the sense that you are mentioning.

 

I mean let's not look at how the SOB actually have more power over the common man than space marines do.

 

Also, I consider it consistent because it's not mentioned in just one thing, but several. So consistent meaning, it's consistently been the same.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Bryan Blaire]

:facepalm: You guys are still trying to conflate the ideas such that canon and absolute/objective truth are the same thing.

[Arkangilos]

I'm not. I'm saying that there are actual, absolute truths that exist within canon. I'm not saying all canon is absolute truth.

 

For example, we know for a fact that the codex astartes exists. What we don't know are the details beyond the, "ten companies" and "provides tactics" part.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos