The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Bryan Blaire]

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.

Except that from a couple of people more tightly associated than you or I with GW, in their own words state that the lore accounts are not the absolute truth, i.e. there are no absolute truths in the lore. I've actually quoted that a couple of times. Even in the smallest details recorded, there could be something slightly off. That's why an unreliable arrogant is great, it allows you to say that very clearly without having to define exactly what is "off" in each text.

[Arkangilos]

So he consistent thing there is that all chapters are unified in some way by some aspect of the codex (note that's not to say they all follow it). They all know about it, they all probably have a copy, but they don't all have the *same* copy. My copy will be different than yours. You may not even care about your copy. That is where the loose canon comes in. But there IS a codex. Your chapter acknowledges it, mine acknowledged it, the others acknowledge it.

[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.

Except that from a couple of people more tightly associated than you or I with GW, in their own words state that the lore accounts are not the absolute truth, i.e. there are no absolute truths in the lore. I've actually quoted that a couple of times. Even in the smallest details recorded, there could be something slightly off. That's why an unreliable arrogant is great, it allows you to say that very clearly without having to define exactly what is "off" in each text.

Right, the accounts are not absolute truths, but there are absolute truths. Like I said, I'm willing to bet the following are absolute truths:

 

The Emperor is on the throne.

 

Sanguinius died to Horus.

 

There were "twenty" Primarchs

 

Guilliman came back to life

 

The Eldar created Slaanesh

 

There is a great rift across the galaxy

 

Only males are space marines

 

The codex exists

 

If ADB comes in here and says any of those are wrong or could be wrong I'll change my mind. Until he says that, I'm firmly in the camp that there are some things that are absolute.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Bryan Blaire]

Sure, there's something that Chapters call the Codex Astartes.

 

But is it what the lore keeps describing it as?

 

It could be a comic book, and the "actual" reason that Chapters follow the same structure is that they are hypoindoctrinated to. That same hyponoindoctrination may tell those Marines that every time they look at said comic book, it's actually a 3028 page book with big words on warfare. Can you always trust your mind when you've been raised in a specific society to believe a certain way?

 

That is the real beauty when you get to an unreliable narrator. How real is the reality presented in the text.

 

And you may be willing to bet, but you'd lose per the quotes.

 

The biggest reason to have a concrete, absolute continuity of events for anything is to be able to say "This is the right, defined path for X story" and for anything that deviates from this, it's wrong.

 

GW has said this isn't how they are working things. Even the idea that there are no female Space Marines could be an interpretation: if you were walking down the street as a barely educated cog for a munitorium factotum who had never in your life seen a Space Marine and passed one and somehow overcame all psychological impact of the event, considering the rather substantial changes - fantastically far beyond anything we have to compare to on Earth now - would you be capable of saying anything about where that Marine had come from aside from "Yes, that matches my known description of a Space Marine?"

[Arkangilos]

We will see if I lose the bet per quote. No point in continuing until I get an answer. I think you are misunderstanding the extent of what he meant.

 

I mean he and Laurie (spelling) have both said in the past that rogue trader fluff can't be really used anymore in discussions (paraphrasing). It was in one of the threads when someone kept arguing with them about lore and they kept bringing up old lore and Laurie said that that has all been retconned and that you pretty much use the most recent lore.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Brother Sefiel]

Hello

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...

And Russ was "an agent of the Adeptus Terra" back when he wasn't a space Viking superhero. I believe that primarchs didn't exist as a concept at the time (afraid I can't remember the timeframe of them being introduced - things are a bit hazy).

[Bryan Blaire]

I think you are misunderstanding the extent of what he meant.

And I think you are understating the extent of what was meant.

 

Do I believe that there are "objective/absolute truths" established somewhere in the depths of GW for 40K? Sure, anyone writing things has to have some idea of what they are seeing as "real" for a fictional world. And frankly I think most of what is in the text relatively mirrors what that absolute truth is, from a certain point of view in the writing, it doesn't wildly diverge from those ideas to give us a decent, even if biased, view of the setting without locking us absolutely into a right/wrong continuum (since neither side can offer absolute proof, since GW hasn't offered absolute truth). There's room for interpretation, per what BL authors do.

 

I think that what we can't say with any amount of certainty (such as being able to declare ourselves "right" on the Internet) is that we know exactly how what is depicted in the lore we have been given is different from that objective truth for the setting we've never been shown.

 

And GW has the freedom to circle around this: look at the Chronostrife - they even threw the concept of the time lines they have had in Codexes into question. How far have they been off? Are we still in M41 or is it M42? And if you want to be "right", how can you prove it?

 

Is that really the Emperor sitting on the Golden Throne, or is it some poor bastard's skeleton someone stuck there to cover up the fact that the Emperor has transcended and the Astronomicon really is just powered by the psychic rendering of the thousand psychic souls a day? Or is that really the Emperor and those psychics are rendered down to rebuild him? Is it exactly as we have been told? It could be almost anything, and since the setting is unreliable, you really can't be "right" because you can't prove it. The more outlandish the idea though, the more unlikely it is - for instance, it's really damn unlikely that the Emperor on the Golden Throne is actually a massive fragment of Tzeentch playing the universe's greatest game of "screw humanity" possible, and I wouldn't believe it if someone wrote that it was, however, given all the correct circumstances written, would anyone actually be able to tell? After all, it seems like the Changeling, not even as powerful as Tzeentch, was able to mask itself from Space Marine Librarians, and I don't believe that Tzeentch is above continuing to put its own minions against opposition to continuous a good game.

 

Per one Adeptus's points earlier though - still not really understanding why there is a defined absolute truth for all stories or not even matters. It still seems like a way to be able to institute exclusivity in the hobby. "I play the canon, therefore I'm more right than you per GW!" I have a feeling that this, more than anything, is what GW was trying to avoid in the community by providing no absolutely stated truths, because that kind of attitude can get toxic quick. Instead, alternate versions are easily allowed because no one can inherently claim "right"-ness, and it comes down to your personal feelings and ideas on the settings. Maybe I don't want to accept exactly how the Big Four are written in the Codex and some political flunky of the Dark Angels helped those traitors escape Inquisitorial persecution, but they've been found out. Maybe the BA really do have a quick snack every single battle, friend or foe, it matters not as long as the blood flows into their mouths. Maybe the Iron Hands are a little more associated with the Adeptus Mechanicus than people really know.

 

All of these are things that don't obliterate anything in the setting, but are not the way it is stated in the lore. None of it matters from a canon point of view, because it isn't official, and none of it conflicts with the canon, because canon isn't absolute. And if people want to discuss something other than what is specifically written in the books, such as their personal interpretations, then it has to be understood that because these aren't official writings, they aren't canon either...

[Schlitzaf]

To echo what others have said, the importance of 'canon' in the current context is not right or wrong. It's....so we can talk. If I came into the Liber asking "so how does becoming a Space Marine interfere with a person's sexual drive or maturation". Then I get into a large and excessive argument, claiming 'no no, that isn't helpful for x..". Until 5 pages later I say "oh I am talking about female Space Marines." The issue at hand is not 'ignoring' that every text referring to Marine creation as wrong.

 

What is 'wrong' is a individuals in discussion we aren't discussing the same thing. Let alone have the same basis for the discussion. Believe what you want or think what you want. However realize if you are gonna have anything akin to a reasonable discussion, you have to be on the same footing.

 

If I tell you "I want to show you this cool Warhammer type thing I got." And you come and expect to see GW or GW like Mini's and suddenly you show me an actual Warhammer. I come perhaps surprised but potentially a lot disappointed. Canon can be what you want. If you want to discuss the story of 40K, there are elements that are taking as gospel (even if said gospel is actually utterly false. Like for example maybe secretly all marines are female as part of the gene-seed process).

[Jareddm]

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

I just wanted to add that I actually think this is the perfect opportunity for even more unreliable narration.

 

A story about Guilliman's historians going from world to world, trying to piece together what happened, and getting wildly different answers is exactly the kind of story I'd love to read.  He could be speaking to one planetary governor and suddenly go, "Wait, what?  But the population one planet over said the exact opposite happened!"

[Arkangilos]

To echo what others have said, the importance of 'canon' in the current context is not right or wrong. It's....so we can talk. If I came into the Liber asking "so how does becoming a Space Marine interfere with a person's sexual drive or maturation". Then I get into a large and excessive argument, claiming 'no no, that isn't helpful for x..". Until 5 pages later I say "oh I am talking about female Space Marines." The issue at hand is not 'ignoring' that every text referring to Marine creation as wrong.

 

What is 'wrong' is a individuals in discussion we aren't discussing the same thing. Let alone have the same basis for the discussion. Believe what you want or think what you want. However realize if you are gonna have anything akin to a reasonable discussion, you have to be on the same footing.

 

If I tell you "I want to show you this cool Warhammer type thing I got." And you come and expect to see GW or GW like Mini's and suddenly you show me an actual Warhammer. I come perhaps surprised but potentially a lot disappointed. Canon can be what you want. If you want to discuss the story of 40K, there are elements that are taking as gospel (even if said gospel is actually utterly false. Like for example maybe secretly all marines are female as part of the gene-seed process).

Exactly the first part. And this can once again be shown on the thread I linked earlier. (In regards to the we can have a discussion). Edited September 8, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Bryan Blaire]

I just wanted to add that I actually think this is the perfect opportunity for even more unreliable narration.

 

A story about Guilliman's historians going from world to world, trying to piece together what happened, and getting wildly different answers is exactly the kind of story I'd love to read.  He could be speaking to one planetary governor and suddenly go, "Wait, what?  But the population one planet over said the exact opposite happened!"

:tu: :tu:

 

Just like real historians! Except 40K historians are more likely to get blown up/shot trying to dig up corroboration in a war zone (since everywhere pretty much is a war zone), or have their work deliberately altered at some point, or a portion of it burnt up per previous war zone and the person they got the story from already killed, leaving it unrecoverable, etc.

[Bryan Blaire]

Exactly the first part. And this can once again be shown on the thread I linked earlier. (In regards to the we can have a discussion).

I'm pretty sure that this would be easily solved by stipulating exactly what you are trying to have a discussion in regard to.

 

Coming into a discussion stating an argument without providing all of the stipulations, and then providing facets after the fact, such as "Well, I was specifically referencing..." or "In my headcanon..." should pretty universally be known as ineffective communication.

 

Also, that's where providing sources for points made in a discussion are very helpful. Quoting an actual piece of text is so much better and convincing than "Well, I remember when...". In 40K, you just have to then also discuss possible bias, interpretation, etc.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

"I play the canon, therefore I'm more right than you per GW!" I have a feeling that this, more than anything, is what GW was trying to avoid in the community by providing no absolutely stated truths, because that kind of attitude can get toxic quick.

 

 

 

Ehhh. . . I was with you BB right up until this point.  I've been playing BattleTech longer than I've been playing 40K and the two universes are roughly the same age.  One of the major differences between the two is that BattleTech's various publishers actually track what is canon and what is not.  Most of "what is not" is retcons, like the ending of one of the Dark Age novels (To Ride the Chimaera?  Bonfire of Worlds?  I forget) or the existence of sentient aliens from Far Country.  And while this makes fact-checking a nightmare for the publishers when they're working on new material -- the recently published First and Second Succession War sourcebooks, for example, integrated literally decades of lore together into a pair of united volumes and was by the admission of the authors and editors quite the ordeal -- the fact that they go to such lengths and have specific persons and dates and regiments and clusters and planets and national borders all sketched out precisely from Point A to Point Z means that the BattleTech forums don't end up with threads like this one where everybody is trying to claim that their interpretation is the right one.  All it takes is one forum-going fan with the right sourcebook willing to quote page and paragraph and boom!  And it's not about establishing "exclusivity," nor does it result in a toxic environment.  There are plenty of BattleTech gamers who make their own minor commands or mercenary units and write in-depth, timeline-following histories of those units and their members.  For them, it's not about breaking from canon, it's about fitting their own stories into the cracks in the setting.  It's not about who's more right than someone else.  It's the difference between modeling the Ultramarines 2nd Company exactly as they appear in the codex and building your own Chapter.  Both players are operating inside the 40K universe.  Neither is more right or wrong than the other, one is just exercising greater creative freedom than the other.

[Doctor Perils]

=][=

Right, we're going to take a breather for 48 hours.

Please remember: everybody has to play nice or no-one can play.

=][=

[Bryan Blaire]

There's a big difference between arguing "is something canon" and "my interpretation of canon is right". It's right there in the argument.

 

And you can't deny that arguing "What is canon" can get toxic - look at other fandoms (besides Battletech, maybe those of us that played it are just different on that) for prime examples of that, some of which have been brought up in this thread already, and they usually revolve around retcons/cancelled canon. Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars have all had some rather toxic discussions over the concept of canonicity for the shows/movies.

[Doctor Perils]

=][=

Right, we're going to take a breather for 48 hours.

Please remember: everybody has to play nice or no-one can play.

=][=

[Brother Sefiel]

Hello again

 

Some people have claimed that without the basic framework of the setting we wouldn't be able to discuss things sensibly. In some ways I agree, so if I were to narrow down the core of the setting that simply can't be altered if you want it to remain 40k, it would be:

 

It is the far future; the peak of human technical knowledge was reached thousands of years ago and it has been decaying ever since

Humanity is, in the main, xenophobic and superstitious, ruled as an Imperium formed of hundreds of thousands of often very different worlds

The central Imperial government on Terra is entirely uncaring about its general populace, and is willing to sacrifice vast numbers for Pyrrhic victories

In the past humans were led for many years by an unusually-powerful Emperor figure; now he is incapacitated or dead, and is revered as a god

Most aliens are hostile - many are unremittingly hostile; humans have vast armies of regular troops backed by the elite space marines to fight them

Most interstellar travel is conducted through the warp, which seems to be an amalgamation of hyperspace and hell

Humanity is gradually becoming more psychic, and that leaves many vulnerable to the warp, often mutating them and making them betray humanity

Many psykers have useful abilities that can be utilised by the Imperium, but they are not trusted by most humans and are regarded as freaks

The psychic entities that rule the warp collectively refer to themselves as chaos and can manifest themselves in the "real" world in order to fight its denizens

The various factions are in constant conflict, which we play out on tabletops with (sometimes beautifully-painted) toy men, women, monsters and vehicles

 

I don't think that we can underestimate how important the warp and psykers are to the uniqueness of the setting, but a lot of what we discuss seems to actually be pretty malleable. Within these confines, are not all of our individual visions possible? The rest is surely detail - as could be described by an unreliable narrator...

 

If you disagree, what do you think is so critical to the background that it simply could not be left out?

 

However, perhaps we are looking at this wrongly. Instead of saying "what is canon/the official truth" we should be looking at what the game _isn't_. I.e., what we _have_ to reject because it would absolutely break the background, what would be beyond the nature of mere unreliable narration.

 

And I think that something would have to be way beyond what we've already seen. I don't think that female space marines come close. A human Imperium would still be a really horrid place if there are female supersoldiers (perhaps it would be worse). Primarchs are more difficult to dispel now there's a Guilliman running about (previously they could "just" be daemon princes) although Cawl has done some pretty remarkable things in recent times. Maybe he built a super-ultra-soldier _to fit with the legends and take advantage of humanity's desire for an effective leader_.

 

So do you guys agree with my summation above? And what do you think would trash the background beyond unreliable narration?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Brother Sefiel

[Ascanius]

I think a lot of things that people "have to reject because it breaks the background" are matters of taste.

 

For some people, female Space Marines "break the background" because, say, it's important to them to maintain a consistency of science-fictional rationale for certain things in the setting, and since it's been established in earlier publications that the enhancement process will only work in genetically male subjects, they don't want to see that changed.

 

Some people will argue that you can have Space Marines who were born as women, but that the process of Space Marine creation changes the subject so much that the resultant hypermuscled body would not display any visual cues of femininity, so there's no reason for female Space Marines to be modelled or drawn to look any different from standard male Space Marines.

 

For others, the "science" might not be the sticking point - but the prohibition against the Ecclesiarchy's maintaining "men under arms" as a historical justification for the existence of the Sisters of Battle is important to them, and so they don't want to see female Space Marines introduced because it raises the spectre of the Ecclesiarchy setting up all-female chapters of Space Marines that would overshadow the Sisters.

 

There are plenty of other reasons.

 

But some people don't have a problem with it at all because they see Space Marines being all male as just an artifact of the time in which they were invented, and see no reason to let the assumptions of 1987 inform what they do with their hobby now.

 

There are a lot of people on this board who have beliefs or opinions about 40K that fundamentally contravene elements of the setting that are absolutely essential, as far as I'm concerned. You don't have to look that hard to find people who think Space Marines or Imperial Guard are admirable figures, whereas to me the noblest Space Marine you can name in any era of the setting is about on the level of a clean-limbed, strong-jawed, heroic SS officer on a propaganda poster.

 

My pet bugbear is people - who more often show up on reddit rather than here, to be fair - who resent the notion that the story of Ollanius Pius standing up to Horus in the face of inevitable death might be retconned, whereas to me the idea that it might prove to be a mythologisation of a very different figure by Imperial authorities fits 40K perfectly . . . especially since it's always read exactly like a hagiographic fable, about as real as Saint Patrick expelling all the snakes from Ireland.

[Adeptus]

I think that everyone creates their own 41st Millennium using the building blocks they're given. There's probably millions of different versions of the 41st Millennium out there, every player having their own interpretation, and while some are very similar and some are indistinguishable from others, there will be some that are so different from one another that they might appear to be entirely different settings! 

 

And the important thing is that that's ok. It's better than ok, it's even good and desirable. The search for a single constant true record of events is pointless, and the idea that everyone would need to abide by that one true record of events, lest their interpretations of the literature be considered wrong, is harmful to the richness and depth of the setting AND the immersion and enjoyment of the readers. That's why some people use phrases like everything you have been told is the truth; everything you have been told is a lie, or that everything is canon. And none of it is. Because what is 'true' is up to the readers interpretation.

 

And another important thing to consider is that the most juicy and delicious conversations always centre around the areas where interpretation and prediction hold the most sway, which is inevitably in the areas least fleshed out by GW. Less detail, more unreliable narration is good. It fuels the creative mind and gives us a freer reign to build our own settings.

[Bryan Blaire]

The search for a single constant true record of events is pointless, and the idea that everyone would need to abide by that one true record of events

Not only is it pointless, it's impossible in 40K, because so far as we've been told, there IS no one constant true record in the canon material, and from what we've been told, there won't be. There are things that are consistently mentioned, and even mentioned in a specific fashion, so we can be reasonably certain that these ideas are reliable in some form, but we don't actually know, outside of these varyingly unreliable accounts, just how reliable those facts really are. This hasn't changed.

 

lest their interpretations of the literature be considered wrong, is harmful to the richness and depth of the setting AND the immersion and enjoyment of the readers. That's why some people use phrases like everything you have been told is the truth; everything you have been told is a lie, or that everything is canon. And none of it is. Because what is 'true' is up to the readers interpretation.

It's got nothing to do with 'interpretation' of anything, and people can always argue that an interpretation is wrong. What you interpret isn't canon, and what is canon for 40K isn't the absolute truth. What is canon, as unreliable as it may be, is what has been written.

 

Less detail, more unreliable narration is good. It fuels the creative mind and gives us a freer reign to build our own settings.

More stated unreliable narration is better, but at this point, all the narration is unreliable, therefore there is no need to remove any amount of detail, because the details are unreliable, and you are just as free to build your own version now as you were back in 2nd Edition (and that personal setting will be as equally not canon now, or under additional unreliable narrator, as it was then).

 

People still seem to want to enforce rules that don't belong to 40K's canonicity to it. Everything that has been published by GW is canon. It doesn't matter if it conflicts because it is all unreliable, whether that unreliability it attributed specifically or not. You can pick and choose how you view the setting from amongst all the canon material and it will all still be canon 40K (although your personal view, no matter how couched in canon it might be, will not be canon itself). Don't like how one GW author or GW book depicts something in the setting (or multiple things), then it is very likely that for you the unreliability of the account is exactly what you need to say "Nah" and continue on with what you do like, and it is all still canon. Personal adjustment in that fashion doesn't alter that the material was still canon, and someone else instead chooses to exercise the idea that what you like is unreliable. That doesn't make your selection of canon material more right than theirs, nor their selection more right than yours, because it is all canon, and all equally unreliable.

 

That's really all there is to it on the subject.

 

Getting back to the actual topic, yes, it would be fantastic if more things were written as being attributed to a specific author "after the fact" (such as a historian's by-line) or character's viewpoint, such as they are sometimes in the Black Library stuff, but even in the Codexes.

[Arkangilos]

Found it!

 

Legatus, on 22 Dec 2016 - 4:15 PM, said:

 

DarKnight, on 22 Dec 2016 - 2:35 PM, said:

 

Laurie has stated (in one of these threads) that Index Astartes is no longer canon (though I hope it is reprinted anyway!)

+++

 

What, the whole thing is declared invalid in it's entirety? Even things that haven't been adressed in any other publication? The details about the Chapters' gene-seed and beliefs in the 41st millennium and the youth of the Primarchs? What about the descriptions of what the Chapters had done immediately after the Heresy, like their Scouring campaigns or troubles rebuilding? Are the details about the Iron Cage incident no longer canon, or the Ultramarines' and Imperial Fists' decade long campaign to destroy the Iron Warriors worlds? Are Ultramarines recruits no longer considered to receive military training from the age of 6 onward?

+++

 

(Laurie Starts Here)

 

Settle down. Apply logic, people.

 

I will give my thoughts on canon/the hierarchy of facts in Warhammer in a video blog soon. Suffice to say for now, where a newer publication contradicts an older one, you have to accept the new one or look for a reason WHY there's a contradiction. There's often a story in there, too.

 

If a morsel of content was not changed or re-presented in a newer version of the background, then you can assume that the old bit is still true, as long as it doesn't mess with anything else. But don't parade around like the word of the frickin' gods, because it's not. (Case in point, is Anval Thawn still canon, and still a Perpetual? Yes. He's just not in the current Codex.)

 

However, the Index Astartes articles themselves have mostly been replaced in the A-canon by Forge World and Black Library publications. Stuff like Angron being attacked by eldar is still actually referenced in 'Butcher's Nails', for example - so actually, that's an example of something that HAS been reiterated in a newer product.

This would imply that newer stuff overrides older stuff (which is no longer canon). However, the unreliable narrator allows that to happen in universe. And this isn't the first time I've seen him make a statement on how the older stuff isn't canon anymore (such as in debates with Legatus)

[Arkangilos]

To come back to the question of "Why do I hate Index Astartes?" - I don't hate them. I think there were some really interesting ideas in there, and as people have said, they were the only place to get pre-Heresy info on a lot of the Legions for a loooooong time.

 

But they are out of date, with regard to the canon. Newer stuff has replaced them. They are becoming obsolete as newer publications cover the same content, in a more relevant and better-written way.

 

It's like Rogue Trader (which is getting a reprint, did you see that? Awesome!) being heralded as "the only true 40k canon". Utter bobbins, say I. That's like saying that the first ever car was the best and no subsequent design or model will ever out-perform it. Sure, appreciate the retro entertainment of a book nearly 30 years old, but don't call it canon anymore.

 

===

 

And if anyone was a fan of Alan Merrett's work but then changed their opinion based on that screen-capture... well, may your neckbeard grow ever longer.

[Arkangilos]

Gosh finding those was rough. I had to sift through some dark things, lol

[Allart01]

The Dark Angels had an unreliable narrator -Astelan- and look where that brought them.

Most people define them by some low quality meme, now :(

 

(Joking, I'm all for an unreliable narrator)

[Arkangilos]

It wasn't just that story that gave them that light :p