"Grimdark"...what it means to you

[A D-B]

 

 

 

Being directly stated to win in the end no matter what?

 

Sometimes I wonder what people ever thought 40K was. Several non-Imperial factions have - integral in their lore - "And this is just the first wave; when the real deal comes, the Imperium won't be able to hold it back."

 

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

 

 

i feel like it could be one (or a mix) of two things. there's a huge amount of 40k content out there and it is possible for someone who has only encountered a small or select amount to come away with a totally different idea of the concept than was intended. which isn't "wrong" as such.

 

also, sometimes when people have a powerfully rigid way of looking at things, they tend to look specifically for that thing and to find it even if it might not be there. it's a form of confirmation bias that often stands strong even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the opposite.

 

All true, and I should stress I'm all for taking different things from the setting. I've only seen a tiny handful of informed opinions that try to insist I'm retconning something or it's somehow unique to TMoM. It's a pretty rare phenomenon, thankfully.

[b1soul]

What's the point of BL or GW outright stating that the Imperium is 100% doomed to be consumed by Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, Chaos, all of the above?

 

To me, a tiny spark of hope has always been implied by the nature of probability...

99% chance of doom, 1% chance of victory (or maybe even 99.99% vs. 0.01%). It would really hard for the Imperium to win this lottery, but it's not impossible. That's more than Grimdark enough IMO.

 

Frankly, I don't see the point of outright guaranteeing the Imperium's failure. It adds nothing to the setting IMO and is bad from a narrative perspective. Why is this type of absolute certainty needed? It's not.

[A D-B]

What's the point of BL or GW outright stating that the Imperium is 100% doomed to be consumed by Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, Chaos, all of the above?

 

To me, a tiny spark of hope has always been implied by the nature of probability...

99% chance of doom, 1% chance of victory (or maybe even 99.99% vs. 0.01%). It would really hard for the Imperium to win this lottery, but it's not impossible. That's more than Grimdark enough IMO.

 

Frankly, I don't see the point of outright guaranteeing the Imperium's failure. It adds nothing to the setting IMO and is bad from a narrative perspective. Why is this type of absolute certainty needed? It's not.

 

No idea why, really. It's always been this way. The difference is now that sometimes we do stuff like post on forums, give interviews, and do book afterwords, so people that haven't seen it that way before assume it's a change.

 

Again: 

 

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

 

If you ever came out of 40K thinking the Blue Team were going to pull it together in the end, well... Your call. But pretending any one author has anything to do with a "retcon" is pretty laughable.

 

And, again, the Golden Throne was announced as irreparably failing, ten years ago. I mean, it can't be any clearer than that.

 

There's also the fact that people consider a Chaos "victory" to mean different things. And they assume it means the same thing to everyone. The truth is, it rarely does. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by A D-B

[b1soul]

Just my personal rant...not claiming it was a retcon by an authour.

[A D-B]

Just my personal rant...not claiming it was a retcon by an authour.

 

No, I know. You weren't. There are 1-2 posters that tend to repeatedly insist it's something new I invented, though.

Edited October 26, 2017 by A D-B

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

 

Being directly stated to win in the end no matter what?

 

Sometimes I wonder what people ever thought 40K was. Several non-Imperial factions have - integral in their lore - "And this is just the first wave; when the real deal comes, the Imperium won't be able to hold it back."

 

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

 

 

i feel like it could be one (or a mix) of two things. there's a huge amount of 40k content out there and it is possible for someone who has only encountered a small or select amount to come away with a totally different idea of the concept than was intended. which isn't "wrong" as such.

 

also, sometimes when people have a powerfully rigid way of looking at things, they tend to look specifically for that thing and to find it even if it might not be there. it's a form of confirmation bias that often stands strong even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the opposite.

 

All true, and I should stress I'm all for taking different things from the setting. I've only seen a tiny handful of informed opinions that try to insist I'm retconning something or it's somehow unique to TMoM. It's a pretty rare phenomenon, thankfully.

 

 

 

to be fair, he does seem to have a particular focus on tMoM like it's a personal slight

Edited October 26, 2017 by mc warhammer

[mc warhammer]

What's the point of BL or GW outright stating that the Imperium is 100% doomed to be consumed by Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, Chaos, all of the above?

 

To me, a tiny spark of hope has always been implied by the nature of probability...

99% chance of doom, 1% chance of victory (or maybe even 99.99% vs. 0.01%). It would really hard for the Imperium to win this lottery, but it's not impossible. That's more than Grimdark enough IMO.

 

Frankly, I don't see the point of outright guaranteeing the Imperium's failure. It adds nothing to the setting IMO and is bad from a narrative perspective. Why is this type of absolute certainty needed? It's not.

 

 

idk man, there's plenty of stories where the end is a foregone conclusion (historical, well known myths or stories that begin with the finale and then track back) that are well loved. 

 

and there's also a great tradition in last stand stories too. the ability to win isn't really the point, and is actually kinda sorta mostly the opposite of the point

[Prot]

As a kid I was a huge fan of those ‘What if’ comics. Sometimes it was simply about the impossible coming to fruition. I’m kind of like this in real life too.... tell me something can’t be done and I’ll do whatever it takes to make it work.

 

I really believe there is a ‘What if’ scenario buried at the end of the Imperium that flips everything we know and expect upside down. But I accept I’m in the minority and don’t blame any authors for my personal idiosyncrasies.

 

I’ve read some pretty crazy alleged background stuff in the 40k universe dating back decades. It’s always stuck with me that it’s not over until the fat lady sings and last time I checked the Emperor was a shriveled up dude who can’t carry a tiune.

 

So for now my Grimdark only happens on the table top....typically vs Eldar or smite spam(lately Astra too)

[b1soul]

Could you name the stories you have in mind?

 

40K is not a traditional story. IMO, it's a setting with open-ended narrative elements. Therefore, it has no "end" or denouement (hope I'm using the word correctly).

 

I just don't think there is a need for this sort of "doomsday" certainty in the 40K universe. It doesn't add anything and it kills interest derived from a modicum of uncertainty.

[A D-B]

Could you name the stories you have in mind?

 

40K is not a traditional story. IMO, it's a setting with open-ended narrative elements. Therefore, it has no "end" or denouement (hope I'm using the word correctly).

 

I just don't think there is a need for this sort of "doomsday" certainty in the 40K universe. It doesn't add anything and it kills interest derived from a modicum of uncertainty.

 

This is what I mean, though. Ten years ago, when the Golden Throne was stated as failing and impossible to repair? Or the Tyranids and Necrons, whose very emergence means the Imperium is screwed when the rest of them arrive/awaken?

 

Nothing is more or less "certain" now than it's ever been. If the above, and the rest of the setting, wasn't enough to convince you, what are you saying has changed? We won't ever see that stuff, because it's not a story, it's a setting. Nothing has been lost. Nothing has changed.

 

EDIT: It's 5:13am so I likely sound more argumentative than I intend, here. And, again, I think "eventual victory" means something different to everyone. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by A D-B

[mc warhammer]

Could you name the stories you have in mind?

 

40K is not a traditional story. IMO, it's a setting with open-ended narrative elements. Therefore, it has no "end" or denouement (hope I'm using the word correctly).

 

I just don't think there is a need for this sort of "doomsday" certainty in the 40K universe. It doesn't add anything and it kills interest derived from a modicum of uncertainty.

 

not sure if this was a response to what i wrote? i mean, i don't think i can come up with any examples of well known myths and historical stories that aren't...well known? ya know? you can look up any of the famous authors i mentioned to mrdarth too- "no country for old men" is worth checking out in either book or movie form.

 

yeah, 40k is a setting not a story as we all (mostly) know on these boards. but there is something singular and distinct about such a powerfully oppressive and fatalisitic background. 90% of settings or stories have that narrative hope you're talking about (especially northern american stuff) so 40k offers us a unique playground to examine characters and stories within. i don't know if it raises the stakes or the urgency but it does change them. 

 

and what is a spark of "hope"? it doesn't have to be as literal as total victory. that seems a bit...ham fisted...to me. a bit obvious. hope and goals can be a far more personal. 

 

there's a movie called "these final hours", which unlike 99% of extinction threat films, ends with the world actual destruction (shocking!). its more about how we choose to live out those final hours than how we can pull some sweet deus ex machina out of our asses at the last second. it's a far more human story than most of that genre.

 

not saying it's a great movie, but in a world of "armageddon" films it's worth exploring. 40k will never actually reach midnight anyway, but there's something special about knowing we can't stop the clock.   

Edited October 26, 2017 by mc warhammer

[Scribe]

What's the point of BL or GW outright stating that the Imperium is 100% doomed to be consumed by Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, Chaos, all of the above?

 

To me, a tiny spark of hope has always been implied by the nature of probability...

99% chance of doom, 1% chance of victory (or maybe even 99.99% vs. 0.01%). It would really hard for the Imperium to win this lottery, but it's not impossible. That's more than Grimdark enough IMO.

 

Frankly, I don't see the point of outright guaranteeing the Imperium's failure. It adds nothing to the setting IMO and is bad from a narrative perspective. Why is this type of absolute certainty needed? It's not.

 

I brought this up to my group.

 

My entire play group, guys who have been in the hobby from the late 90's, simply assume its a given that 'eventually', that eventually that ADB has stated is never going to happen, the Imperium does lose.

 

There is nothing logical, canonical (yet) or 'value adding' to suggest otherwise.

 

The technology WAS failing.

The culture WAS stagnating.

The borders WERE shrinking.

 

The combined might of the Imperiums opponents, to say nothing of the 'and when X REALLY wakes up/shows up/unites' made it a comical position to try and argue that 'well maybe there is a ray of hope.'

 

There isnt. There wasnt. There has not been.

 

mc warhammer puts it better than I will bother to try right above me here, but there is a niche portion of the population that yes, wants to be immersed in a setting that is factually DOOMED.

 

I mean thats what I, and everyone in my group who's been part of this hobby for near twenty freaking years, has understood since day one.

 

'Oh an Eternity of Slaughter put to the back drop of the laughter of thirsting gods? Sounds perfect.'

 

Hope, any!, has not been what this setting has been about since AT LEAST 3rd Edition.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

The technology WAS failing.

The culture WAS stagnating.

The borders WERE shrinking.

 

 

 

the artwork says all this perfectly

[b1soul]

I'm kinda just throwing out my general preference against an Imperial doomsday being guaranteed and spelled out. I apologise if my thoughts are all over the place.

 

That said, I do agree that even with announcements like "the Golden Throne is irreparably failing", there is wiggle room. For example - "irreparably" failing could mean not reparable with the resources available to the High Lords at the time.

 

Many people thought Guilliman would NEVER come back as he was simply a corpse frozen at the moment of death. Seemed certain enough. Unlikely as it was, he did come back thanks to a combination of circumstances and the stars aligning (and, of course, the true Dark Gods at GW).

 

Same thing with the Golden Throne IMO. Is it likely to be repaired...probably not. Is it truly impossible to repair in this age of Cawl, Guilliman, Aeldari interaction, possible return of other loyalist primarchs (perhaps Vulkan the craftsman)? I don't think so. Even if it were, does irreparable mean irreplaceable or un-substituteable? Not necessarily.

 

As for what constitutes a Chaos victory, I would argue that Chaos already won with the outcome of the Heresy.

 

A hyper-militarised, war-wracked Imperium is preferable to the destruction of the Imperium. Going forward, with the Great Rift, conflict will only escalate. It's possible that Chaos might even prop up the Imperium agaist the Necrons or the Tyranids, just to keep the party going.

 

Thus, in the long-run, I see the Imperium embroiled in a living hell. Beyond that, the future is unclear, though almost certainly unpleasant.

[Scribe]

A

 

Many people thought Guilliman would NEVER come back as he was simply a corpse frozen at the moment of death. Seemed certain enough. Unlikely as it was, he did come back thanks to a combination of circumstances and the stars aligning (and, of course, the true Dark Gods at GW).

Same thing with the Golden Throne IMO. Is it likely to be repaired...probably not. Is it truly impossible to repair in this age of Cawl, Guilliman, Aeldari interaction, possible return of other loyalist primarchs (perhaps Vulkan the craftsman)? I don't think so. Even if it were, does irreparable mean irreplaceable or un-substituteable? Not necessarily.
 

 

And what you have here, is exactly what I have found unacceptable in 8th. Rob coming back? Progress, positive change. Cawl pulling hilariously advanced tech out of his ass? Progress, positive change. Vulkan? Dorn? Whatever.

 

Dont even want to get started on the new Eldar, thats a true slap in the face.

 

Essentially, until these things happened. I was secure in what 40K was. Those writing it well, knew what it was. Now? Meh. The day ADB (and French/Wraight) stops writing, and lets the GW studio drive the storyline, is the day 40K dies to me.

 

40K was the definition, the trope setter, of Grimdark. To go against it as you have noted in the quote here, is actually going against what 40K fundamentally is.

[mc warhammer]

I'm kinda just throwing out my general preference against an Imperial doomsday being guaranteed and spelled out. I apologise if my thoughts are all over the place.

 

That said, I do agree that even with announcements like "the Golden Throne is irreparably failing", there is wiggle room. For example - "irreparably" failing could mean not reparable with the resources available to the High Lords at the time.

 

Many people thought Guilliman would NEVER come back as he was simply a corpse frozen at the moment of death. Seemed certain enough. Unlikely as it was, he did come back thanks to a combination of circumstances and the stars aligning (and, of course, the true Dark Gods at GW).

 

Same thing with the Golden Throne IMO. Is it likely to be repaired...probably not. Is it truly impossible to repair in this age of Cawl, Guilliman, Aeldari interaction, possible return of other loyalist primarchs (perhaps Vulkan the craftsman)? I don't think so. Even if it were, does irreparable mean irreplaceable or un-substituteable? Not necessarily.

 

As for what constitutes a Chaos victory, I would argue that Chaos already won with the outcome of the Heresy.

 

A hyper-militarised, war-wracked Imperium is preferable to the destruction of the Imperium. Going forward, with the Great Rift, conflict will only escalate. It's possible that Chaos might even prop up the Imperium agaist the Necrons or the Tyranids, just to keep the party going.

 

Thus, in the long-run, I see the Imperium embroiled in a living hell. Beyond that, the future is unclear, though almost certainly unpleasant.

 

 

i agree...plenty of wriggle room

 

just because the setting is...uh...set..doesn't mean that anything leading up to that is certain. at all

 

surprises like guilliman can still spring up. hope, true or false can still burn. the choices made by characters and the imperium can still shock or delight us or move us. 

 

i personally think it's really interesting to follow characters who will accept nothing less than total victory themselves, knowing that they will fail. i can't think of too many popular narratives like that.

[mc warhammer]

A

 

Many people thought Guilliman would NEVER come back as he was simply a corpse frozen at the moment of death. Seemed certain enough. Unlikely as it was, he did come back thanks to a combination of circumstances and the stars aligning (and, of course, the true Dark Gods at GW).

 

Same thing with the Golden Throne IMO. Is it likely to be repaired...probably not. Is it truly impossible to repair in this age of Cawl, Guilliman, Aeldari interaction, possible return of other loyalist primarchs (perhaps Vulkan the craftsman)? I don't think so. Even if it were, does irreparable mean irreplaceable or un-substituteable? Not necessarily.

 

 

And what you have here, is exactly what I have found unacceptable in 8th. Rob coming back? Progress, positive change. Cawl pulling hilariously advanced tech out of his ass? Progress, positive change. Vulkan? Dorn? Whatever.

 

Dont even want to get started on the new Eldar, thats a true slap in the face.

 

Essentially, until these things happened. I was secure in what 40K was. Those writing it well, knew what it was. Now? Meh. The day ADB (and French/Wraight) stops writing, and lets the GW studio drive the storyline, is the day 40K dies to me.

 

40K was the definition, the trope setter, of Grimdark. To go against it as you have noted in the quote here, is actually going against what 40K fundamentally is.

 

anyone here watch vikings?

 

there's a scene where king horik promises to help free jarl borg from his imprisonment and impending death. total lie

 

that false hope made borg's eventual death more horrific.

[b1soul]

How does Guilliman's return diminish the Grimdark?

 

Magnus and Mortarion have also returned... possibly other Daemon Primarchs. The Great Rift has opened. A huge swathe of the Imperium is cut off from the Astronomican.

[Karthak]

This is what I mean, though. Ten years ago, when the Golden Throne was stated as failing and impossible to repair? Or the Tyranids and Necrons, whose very emergence means the Imperium is screwed when the rest of them arrive/awaken?

 

Given that the Silent King has designated the Tyranids as threat Nr. 1, one solution to that would be the Necrons and Tyranids tearing each other a new one to the point that the survivor isn't strong enough to take the galaxy.

[Xisor]

Coming from an educational background in theoretical physics, it's the conflation of Chaos and entropy that outright guarantees that foregone conclusion.

 

Assuming everything else is equal (and ignoring idiotic things like Dunestrider machines being perpetual motion machines), then you've got three scenarios:

1- Things, at very best, stay as bad as they currently are (but cannot get better). Getting better locally means at a larger scale everything is marginally worse. So staying the same is 'winning', or as best as can be done.

 

2- Everything gets worse (with localised improvements allowed). So you can refund the 500 Worlds all you like, but it'll cost Segmentum Tempestus to do it.

 

3- Our understanding is way off, and the rules we thought applied don't actually applied. (This allows viewing 99% doom vs 100% doom to be viewed more like a rounding error or result of uncertainty/axiomatic differences, less a rwas on to rage quit. Alternatively, it also allows curve balls to be thrown in. Like ADB saying "we'll never see all the Nids appearing", or whatever he was yam me ring about... He could just be wrong. Or the team change their mind. Whatever. Three years down the line, two thirds of the galaxy could be consumed by trillions of hive feets, and whoever they were fleeing from...)

 

You get the idea. 1 is the 'ideal stance', where the setting endures in perpetuity, and it's the one I think the Alpha Legion look towards. 2 is "chaos victory" (e.g. skipping ahead a bit closer to the end). 3 is what people call retcons, but it really isn't anything of the sort.

 

In terms of narrative, you tend to want to keep some continuity, even if switching gears from 1 to 3. But, given that even books in the same series, by the same author, struggle with narrative contunity with no cosmic influence at all, you get a sense why there might be discrepancies. But, add into that a mindset that *hugely* wants clear cut, definitive answers that are exactly continuous and contiguous, seamless, and that can be universally applied...

 

Well, I'd argue that that mindset will find only pain when examining human creativity.

[mc warhammer]

oh, and just to add that 40k has so many anti nihilist traits that the term doesn’t fit

[MrDarth151]

Lots and lots of things to address.

 

 

 

 

People, as a general rule, dislike nihilistic stories. That's why so very few writers actually do those in any substantial way.

 

yeah, "winter is coming" will never catch on.

 

Game of Thrones is not nihilistic. That's why we treat GRRM saying things like "Yeah, the last two volumes are 700 pages descriptions of snow falling down on the corpses of entire cast" as jokes, rather than serious promises.

 

 

 

and i think fewer writers tackle nihilism, because its hard to pull off not because it won't make the new york times best seller list. thankfully mccarthy, coupland, satre, heidegger, derrida and chekov still gave it a red hot crack.

 

40k also does not tackle existential nihilism like Satre or Heidegger. And thank the Emperor on the Golden Throne for that, hundreds of books in that vein would turn the setting into being virtually unreadable.

 

 

 

All true, and I should stress I'm all for taking different things from the setting. I've only seen a tiny handful of informed opinions that try to insist I'm retconning something or it's somehow unique to TMoM. It's a pretty rare phenomenon, thankfully.

 

 

Just to make this abudantly clear: I do not claim you retconned it in. When I was talking about retcons, I was referring more to the stuff the likes of Cicatrix Maximus Maledictum, damn my memory, which is a retcon. I would say that TMoM is the only book to deal with it in a substantial manner that I have read in the 40k line up. You are free to disagree, of course.

 

I still dislike the word of god statements regarding the ultimate fate of 40k, as I think that the setting allows for multiple interpretations, and stating directly that one is canon over others takes away from it. Again, feel free to disagree.

 

 

oh, and just to add that 40k has so many anti nihilist traits that the term doesn’t fit

 

Oh, it fits perfectly. Existential nihilism stems from the meaninglessness of existence.

 

40k is the universe where your action will never improve the greater state of affairs. You will be born, you will live for whatever time, your actions will achieve nothing of value, at best preserving a regime so horrible it isn't worth defending, and cause another generation of humanity to be born to lead miserable lives that will also not achieve anything, until the Emperor finally fails, humanity dies, and everyone gets to enjoy their souls being eternally tortured by the neverborn. 

 

Like the full Grimdark interpretation of 40k all you like, but let us not pretend it's somehow anti-nihilistic. Anti-nihilism would require character actions to matter. And they don't. The characters are simply ignorant enough of how the universe works, and self-deluded enough to believe otherwise.

 

And. They. Are. Wrong. Really, saying things like that makes it seem like you want to have a cookie and eat a cookie at the same time: Having hardcore grimdark setting, while ignoring the narrative implications that logically stem from having a setting like that.

 

Oh, and one more thing.

 

 

 

Nothing is more or less "certain" now than it's ever been. If the above, and the rest of the setting, wasn't enough to convince you, what are you saying has changed? We won't ever see that stuff, because it's not a story, it's a setting. Nothing has been lost. Nothing has changed.

 

What has changed? We have direct, officially published word of god statement saying we are wrong.

 

This is not me being confrontational, just saying that when the universe is as ambiguous as 40k was when it comes to this stuff (And it was. If I want to believe that the collective faith of Humanity will eventually turn the Emperor of Mankind into true warp god of anti-chaos that will ascend and take over the Warp, there is nothing really to contradict me, especially with how belief works in universe.), the word of god is basically the only thing that separates "Unlikely, but still viable interpretation" from "Fanfiction".

Edited October 27, 2017 by MrDarth151

[Sete]

I'm just annoyed with Cawl new tech and primaris overall. Things were hopeless and bleak. I need no stinking ray of hope.

 

It's the first step in the road to disappointment.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Sete

[Scribe]

It's kind of like the folks that still rage over the Fantasy End Times. Every army book set the stage, and GW pulled the only logical trigger they had left.

 

I mean the Total War forums....some out of touch people.

 

Done and dusted.

 

If 40K was ever to get it's own capstone, it would only ever go one way, and that's a tide of blades, claws, madness, and mutation in an orgy of spiteful rage.

 

And it's been laid at our feet that way for 20 freaking years.

 

I'm too old...

[b1soul]

Which source book did the Starchild theory come from? Wasn't that a blatant glimmer of hope?