The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Scribe]

Funny this topic comes as I am reading through the WHFB 8th Edition books. They have 'canon' but are (especially the Elves books) rife with 'unreliable' narration. As Arkangilos stated above a few posts, there are canonical events. The details, well those are down to interpretation and discussion and this is good, but the Emperor faced Horus, Horus faced and killed the Angel, and these are simply the bedrock of the setting.

 

They are canon.

 

A setting done well, has both a framework (canon) and the room to breath (unreliable narration).

 

This reading of WHFB 8th material REALLY makes me regret what was lost, I dont think the wider gaming public knew just what they had on their hands, and its a shame it had to die.

[Ishagu]

You know, the conflicting truth idea is supposed to apply to the details, NOT the status Quo setting identity.

 

Eg:

-there is a half dead corpse on the Golden Throne

-there is an Ultramarine Chapter

-Abaddon is the Warmaster of the black Legion

 

These are hard facts within the setting and cannot be disputed. That being said:

 

-The Astral Claws Chapter was unfairly pushed into being traitors

-Sebastian Thor was an aspect of the Emperor and not a human

-Random Planet X in sector Z was lost due to a warp storm

 

The above examples can be disputed, viewed from different angles and may or may not be true. This is what is intended as "Anything can be canon or not"

It's this that allows a player to create their own Chapter. These tiny details in a vast setting that may or may not have happened.

 

Going back to the established lore; There are no female Astartes. Guilliman really has returned. Earth has no oceans. These lore bites cannot be disputed. If you do so, then you're not talking about 40k but an alternative reality/elseworld.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Ishagu

[Claws and Effect]

The point mentioned about female Astartes undermining the loophole that caused the Sisters of Battle to exist is actually a good one.

 

If it were possible to create female Space Marines there is basically no reason for the Ecclesiarchy to not have their own all female Chapters instead of normal human women in power armor.

 

Essentially if female Astartes are possible it makes the SoB redundant.

[Ascanius]

Earth has no oceans. These lore bites cannot be disputed.

Funny that you use that example, because I recall reading somewhere that Earth has no oceans in M31 but that they'd been restored by M41.

[Bryan Blaire]

And if you are debating canon, not your view of 40K, that's when the citation of page and text really helps.

 

It is interesting how Mr. Goulding' view on canon seems to be different from quotes others have said, and yet not. Basically "facts" are overwritten only if they are the same "facts" but one is newer. He also states to "look for a reason WHY there is a contradiction. There is often a story in there too."

 

He also goes on to state that the older writings can still be assumed to be true, but not to parade them around like word of God as well. Something tells me that likely goes for any material, since technically all writings are "older writings" when looked at from the current time frame (just being cheeky with some exacting wording).

 

So all in all, it sounds like everyone should be cautioned from acting like they have it exact, and when in doubt, the newest non-contradictory stuff is what is likely being used for writing, but if things are contradictory, there may be a reason.

 

I'm not sure that Mr. Goulding's comments really cleared much of anything up.

[Ishagu]

 

Earth has no oceans. These lore bites cannot be disputed.

Funny that you use that example, because I recall reading somewhere that Earth has no oceans in M31 but that they'd been restored by M41.

Lol maybe I'm wrong.

[Ascanius]

The point mentioned about female Astartes undermining the loophole that caused the Sisters of Battle to exist is actually a good one.

There are, obviously, ways around this for people who want both female Astartes and Sisters of Battle, such as the Ecclesiarchy specifically being forbidden Astartes as well, or even just both coexisting because there are never enough Astartes to fight every battle.

 

The point, really, is that even firm statements like "there is an Emperor sitting on the Golden Throne" doesn't preclude myriad interpretations. There are people who think he knew he'd end up imprisoned there all along and accepted that price for the fulfilment of his vision. There are people who think he's horrified by the Imperium and just wishes to die. There are people who think he's actively guiding the Imperium and responding to prayers. There are people who think he's no longer truly a conscious being but just a raw psychic beacon trapped in decayed flesh.

 

Even scenes like Guilliman's recollection of his audience with the Emperor in Dark Imperium aren't necessarily evidence that the Emperor is truly X or Y. That could have been some other intelligence masquerading as the Emperor - even an artificial one built into the Golden Throne, for instance, that absorbed the dying Emperor's memories and subsumed his mind over 10 millenia. Just an example off the top of my head.

[Brother Sefiel]

Greetings
 

You know, the conflicting truth idea is supposed to apply to the details, NOT the status Quo setting identity.

Eg:
-there is a half dead corpse on the Golden Throne
-there is an Ultramarine Chapter
-Abaddon is the Warmaster of the black Legion

 

Going back to the established lore; There are no female Astartes. Guilliman really has returned. Earth has no oceans. These lore bites cannot be disputed. If you do so, then you're not talking about 40k but an alternative reality/elseworld.

Those are very definitely details. They don't define the setting.

You (and indeed many others) may consider them all important. As has been stated previously, they are not necessarily all accurate.

I don't disagree with some of them. But, for example, I would never, ever, say that someone who uses female space marine models is not playing 40k.

Losing those details does not stop the setting being 40k as such.

[Wargamer]

I've been thinking about this over the past few days, and an idea popped into my head.

 

One of the advantages of unreliable narrative is the ability to reframe elements of the setting. For some people, they like to see Humanity defiant in the face of ultimate evil. Others enjoy bleak futility, or black humour. Some like the Imperium as corrupt and evil, some prefer it to be vast and indifferent.

 

The advantage of unreliable narration is that all these interpretations are valid. It allows 40k to be pitched to a wider audience by tailoring the fine detail to the recipient.

[Scribe]

I've been thinking about this over the past few days, and an idea popped into my head.

 

One of the advantages of unreliable narrative is the ability to reframe elements of the setting. For some people, they like to see Humanity defiant in the face of ultimate evil. Others enjoy bleak futility, or black humour. Some like the Imperium as corrupt and evil, some prefer it to be vast and indifferent.

 

The advantage of unreliable narration is that all these interpretations are valid. It allows 40k to be pitched to a wider audience by tailoring the fine detail to the recipient.

 

100% the line of where that difference of interpretations crosses into retcon or conflict with established canon, is just different for all of us, and leads to some issues.

[Adeptus]

Just because the author, editor, publisher, or anyone else says something about their text or their collection of texts, doesn't make it true.

 

I dispute the notion that there are hard, fixed truths in the 41st Millennium. An authors interpretation of their work carries no more weight than an interpretation of any other reader.

 

If someone wants to develop a theory that the Emperor never existed, or that he was some kind of composite character, or that rumours of his feats have been greatly exaggerated, then they are totally free to do that. And they aren't automatically wrong just because the text contradicts them or the author says "no, I meant for him to be a literal demigod". Obviously some theories are harder to swallow, so we need a much more convincing argument and much more work to make them fit, but that doesn't mean we HAVE to take something as true, just because it's presented that way.

 

This applies equally to ALL 'hard facts' in the 40K canon. They don't HAVE to be true just because GW says they're true. We can interpret them any way we want, take them and twist them and make them fit how we want. The more unreliable the narration, the easier that is, and if we're not concerned with proving the validity of our interpretations then it becomes easier again, which is why I approve of it.

 

To use a Star Wars example, if Episode VIII tried to make the case that the Rebels never destroyed the Death Star (or that the Death Star never even existed, and was purely a rebel propaganda stunt) then they'd really have their work cut out for them. It'd be a very hard sell, one that's extremely risky and could be (would be) deeply unpopular with fans. But they could do it. Just because George Lucas presented it as the truth, doesn't mean they would have to keep it that way. 

 

So if a player wanted to develop a theory that the Emperor has always been a lie, why not?

Edited September 11, 2017 by Adeptus

[Scribe]

And I completely disagree with your position as its a shared universe. Its a setting, and settings have frameworks and 'truths' otherwise its just 'oh do whatever, who cares' and lacks all immersive effect.

 

If a player wants to say the Emperor has always been a lie, then thats fine from an in character perspective. Its a big universe. If a person wants to argue that objectively the Emperor didnt exist, then that player is wrong, objectively.

[Brother Sefiel]

Hi

And I completely disagree with your position as its a shared universe. Its a setting, and settings have frameworks and 'truths' otherwise its just 'oh do whatever, who cares' and lacks all immersive effect.

But the point is that most people are arguing over some degree of detail, not the fundamentals.

I consider the constant changing of the background carried out by GW over the past 30 years to be the _most_ anti-immersive factor. However, the unreliable narrator/Orwellian 40k concept makes this a virtue, not a problem.

And once you accept that the smaller details could be deliberate, there's no reason that some of the "great truths" can't be part of a "big lie"....

[Scribe]

Yes, degree's of detail. To argue, with honest intent, that the Emperor doesnt objectively exist, or never did, is not 40K. A bridge too far, and all that jazz. :p

[Brother Sefiel]

Heh

Yes, degree's of detail. To argue, with honest intent, that the Emperor doesnt objectively exist, or never did, is not 40K. A bridge too far, and all that jazz.

I'll be honest, that goes beyond even my level of heresy!

But if someone has a good idea for it, I'd read it.

[Schlitzaf]

I've been sitting out of this dicussion because for a variety of reasons, I am not a fan of the topic at hand. But "EVERYTHING COULD BE A LIE" is a historian (well historian to be) is something I deal constantly with every single time I read a document of any kind. But contrary to what you would think, when you are in the act of reading, "Everything is True". Period. This changes once you begin the analysis portion but why is "Everything is True" matters? As you read this post understand True is not Real. 

 

Well there are two very distinctive thoughts on this for my era. But the camp I am in and have been taught is the "Everything is True", because if you take the stance "Something is True", what is true? Take the example given for the Dark Elves, High Elves and Dwarves, all three of those accounts are infact true. For the Dwarves, the High Elves did betray their King, killing him and starting the War of the Beard. For the High Elves the truth is that Dark Elves masquerading as High Elves fooled the feeble minded Dwarf King, ultimately resulting in his death. 

 

But separate each idea. Do we have a reason to believe the High Elf author is deliberately writing a false hood? If yes raise your hand. Why would the High Elf author deliberately go out of his way, in a document meant to recorded historical fact, read by own a select number of individuals, whom are relying on the historical authencity of the document for purposes of recording and more, lie? What he wrote and what he believes is True. It is not Real. 

 

The Dwarves believed the capricious elves betrayed their king resulting in his death. Now why would the Dwarves lie? They take their grudges very seriously and thousands died in the name of this grievance. What purpose would a Dwarf author have to stroke the fans of hatred and resulting in death of thousands of his own dying people over a false accusation? He doesn't unless he is a sadist. But does every single Dwarf Historian a sadist? Hence True. 

 

I'll say this as a follow, something matters especially for this kind of discussion about lore of 40K. Just like in History in to an extent the Real does not matter. The Truth is what matters. If we look at the previous example, what really happened is the Dark Elves tricked the Dwarf King and killed him starting a war that would take thousands of live. That is nice? But if we look at the truth what do we see? First we learn the High Elves and Dwarves do not think highly of each other. However were once on amicable terms given their Kings were going to go speak to one another. Or more specifically the Dwarves believed they were on amicable terms. 

 

Furthermore the Dwarves believe that one wrong no matter how long ago must still be corrected or held accountable. It always tells us from the High Elf angle they can never be in the wrong ever, they hold themselves above all others. And for the Dark Elves that interfering in others affairs a perfectly acceptable action. Additionally it shows how much contempt and more that the Dark Elves have for the High Elf race, and how little they care. All of this we gain. 

 

What does saying something is 'false' tell us? It tells us someone is lying and of course the question of why they are lying. But that ends the question their. Its much more interesting "That everything is True". Sense it means you must ask "Why is everything is true? Why is there is a difference. Why would one observer believe the BT worship the God Emperor and the other revere him as a father figure?"

[Bryan Blaire]

Just because the author, editor, publisher, or anyone else says something about their text or their collection of texts, doesn't make it true.

That's exactly what it is - true. Your personal consumption of someone else's creation doesn't change what that creation is, and the only person that can say without a doubt what a creation is would be the creator.

 

An authors interpretation of their work carries no more weight than an interpretation of any other reader.

That's incredibly laughable and pretty insulting. Additionally, in the course of creating and publishing their work, an author performs no interpretation at all.

 

So if a player wanted to develop a theory that the Emperor has always been a lie, why not?

They are completely free to. It isn't canon, because GW didn't say it, but they can come up with it. That's not in dispute.

 

Sorry Adeptus, but you seem to be trying to argue that the world is how you want it, and for you, that can be true all you want. Substituting your reality for reality doesn't make your reality true to anyone but you. It certainly doesn't make your reality what was written (i.e. Canon).

[Ascanius]

Complicating comparisons with the real world is the fact that historians do not and, frankly, cannot provide a single, concretely true and accurate account of events. Even if two historians can agree on the basic details of an incident, their accounts will differ as to why things occurred as they did. These differences will arise from each historian's individual biases, preconceptions, and theories.

 

For instance, why did the Dark Elves assassinate the Dwarf king in such a way as to make it appear that the High Elves betrayed him? "To prevent an accord between their worst enemies and a strong potential ally" is a straightforward answer - but was it driven by their immoral nature, as the High Elves might have it (the Dark Elves are inherently cruel and envious, bent on tearing down anything the High Elves might build for the sake of hurting them), or by the national self-interest of realpolitik (the Dark Elves feared that an alliance with the Dwarfs would allow the High Elves to concentrate their military might on destroying their cousins, perhaps even with Dwarf assistance), or by both motivations, or by a third option?

 

The three different accounts of the assassination are also a simplified example of how different historians might chronicle an event. The Dwarfs not even being aware that there's a difference between the High and Dark Elves is a pretty extreme example, but the history of the real world is littered with events where one historian will account for the actors' motivations in one way, and another historian will have a completely different interpretation.

 

Gavrilo Princip declared at his trial that he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand because he sought unification for all Yugoslavs in a country free from Austrian rule, but different historians have posited that Princip and his co-conspirators were encouraged or assisted by the agents of various foreign powers who sought to weaken Austro-Hungary for their own reasons. Austro-Hungarian historians seeking to justify or excuse their country's rule over Yugoslavia might assert that the Black Hand society and Young Bosnia movement were deluded by agents of Russian socialist revolutionaries trying to destabilise their country's enemy. Yugoslavian historians might reject that the conspirators were motivated by anything other than nationalist sentiment. British historians might have a different interpretation again, painting their World War I enemies as brutal oppressors who created resentment in the Yugoslavian peoples as a way of justifying their own efforts against them. Soviet historians might emphasise or exaggerate the socialist influences on Young Bosnia and minimise the movement's nationalist ideals in order to fit a narrative of class revolution and deprecate ethno-nationalist resentment of the USSR's influence. Et cetera.

 

In the 40K universe, we're all familiar with the way in-character text will be very obviously written to conceal the facts and fit the narrative determined by Imperial propaganda. One of the reasons I like the setting so much is because it reminds me that this is how all history and media coverage works, to a greater or lesser degree. Seeing it exaggerated to the Nth degree in 40K is darkly amusing.

[Schlitzaf]

Mandia are you agreeing or disagreeing? If disagreeing, let me say what I meant in other words. If as a historian I say something or start by reading a primary document as "false" I am in the 'wrong' (according to one view). I have been taught to read and/or look at everything as "True". Or atleast the author who wrote it believed it was true. That is why "True" and "Real" are not the same. And in many ways the "Real" doesn't matter the "True" is what matters.

 

*The other view is that if something is false it worthless for historians. Period. As always their is a Grey and a location on the line an historian will placed themselves on.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Schlitzaf

[Adeptus]

That's exactly what it is - true. Your personal consumption of someone else's creation doesn't change what that creation is, and the only person that can say without a doubt what a creation is would be the creator.

 

 

An authors interpretation of their work carries no more weight than an interpretation of any other reader.

That's incredibly laughable and pretty insulting. Additionally, in the course of creating and publishing their work, an author performs no interpretation at all.

 

This is not my theory, nor is it new. It's a well established post-modern form of literary critique which is highly applicable in this context. An authors statement of intent is simply another critique, the same as any other reader might apply.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

 

If a person wants to argue that objectively the Emperor didnt exist, then that player is wrong, objectively.

 

I'm not saying there is no Emperor, what I'm saying is that everything we consider to be a concrete fact is, in fact, up for debate. There is no 'objective wrong' or 'objective right'.

 

I happen to agree that of course the Emperor was a real being, but if someone put forward a well developed and supported theory on why this might not be the case, I'd certainly read it and give it due consideration rather than dismiss it out of hand becuase it's not 'canon'.

[Bryan Blaire]

Yes, I know the theory. It's bunk while the author/producer is alive/capable of producing.

 

I'd certainly read it and give it due consideration rather than dismiss it out of hand becuase it's not 'canon'.

I don't think that anyone is trying to argue that you shouldn't give something a read/consideration.

 

That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it isn't canon.

 

Also, even one of your own cited texts on the theory speaks the following, which is ironic, since this is exactly what you are trying to do, Adeptus:

This trope does not mean "there is no such thing as canon for a work's events", which is a common misinterpretation of this theory used to justify Canon Defilement. We are completely aware of the irony in telling you how not to interpret it, but putting it in practice this way is just generally a bad idea.

It's always funny when one's own support specifically states not to attempt what you are trying to do.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am not even trying to say that people shouldn't come up with their own views of 40K, I love Homebrew stuff of all kinds (fiction, rules, models, etc.) - some even more than canonical material, I think there may be nuances that official GW product just isn't allowed to explore, however, no matter how much the collective group may enjoy a specific line of thought, that doesn't make it canon material - so if you are having a discussion where canonicity of material make's a fig leaf's difference, then none of that even applies. If it wasn't GW produced/licensed, it's not canon.

[Scribe]

This 'Well if someone made a good argument for the Emperor not existing...' has no more weight to me than the Dornian Heresy.

 

Well written? Yes.

Well executed? Yes.

Interesting? Yes.

 

Dismissed in a discussion of 'canon'? 100%

 

If someone wanted to break it down that the Emperor never happened, I would nod while rolling my dice and passing the turn, until they finished their pitch...and then say 'sounds nice, but its not 40K'.

[Bryan Blaire]

I'm not sure I would say that it isn't 40K, but it probably isn't a 40K you agree with/recognize, and it certainly isn't canon.

[Scribe]

Well like I said, if he had an Inquisitor who's mission was to expose the 'truth' of the emperor not existing? 100% my man, roll with it, thats a great hook. :D

 

If he, as a real live person, had some personal interpretation that said the Emperor never existed? Sorry, go back and read it again, its not 40K, and you missed the boat. :p

[Adeptus]

Yes, I know the theory. It's bunk

You might not agree with it, but it's certainly not bunk. It's a well established literary theory, the entire point of which is that it must be applied even (especially!) when the author is alive and able to be contacted! Because what the author thinks about their text is ultimately no more relevant than what any other person might think.

 

That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it isn't canon.

But it does! Arguing that there is no Emperor is a very long bow to draw, but it highlights the way we interpret text. Why do we all agree that there is an Emperor? Because collectively, that's how we interpret the text. If some blindingly intelligent person constructed a revolutionary way to interpret the text that changed the way we read it, we might very well all come to agree that the Emperor never in fact, existed. I doubt it highly, but I won't dismiss the possibility.

 

It's always funny when one's own support specifically states not to attempt what you are trying to do.

I've never said there is no canon. Just that it's a much more complicated concpt than you think it is. It's certainly not as simple as "gw made it so it's canon".

 

This 'Well if someone made a good argument for the Emperor not existing...' has no more weight to me than the Dornian Heresy.

 

Well written? Yes.

Well executed? Yes.

Interesting? Yes.

 

Dismissed in a discussion of 'canon'? 100%

 

If someone wanted to break it down that the Emperor never happened, I would nod while rolling my dice and passing the turn, until they finished their pitch...and then say 'sounds nice, but its not 40K'.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Dornian Heresy but my understanding is that it presents a swathe of alternate facts/alternate history, which isn't exactly what I'm getting at here.

 

As I mention above, we agree on things because on the whole, we interpret the text in the same way. The important thing is that the text requires interpretation, text always requires interpretatin, and there are always different ways to interpret anything. It would be extremely difficult to come up with an interpretation that 'debunked' the Emperor, but I wouldn't rule it out just because it doesn't agree with my interpretation. We're all free to interpret the text however we want, although we are also obligated to support our interpretations with cogent arguments. Importantly, we aren't restricted to whatever interpretation the author tells us is the correct one.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Adeptus