"Grimdark"...what it means to you

[Sete]

Even if the Emperor comes back (we already have primarchs so why not?) Things are far out of control now. Nids, Necrons, chaos will be forever mankind's cancer.

 

I'm not impressed with the "new" setting so far, but to be fair none of the releases were my cup of tea.

[b1soul]

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

[Scribe]

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

 

You gotta go back to realms of chaos for that buddy. There is a tiny story in the back of I think the 3rd edition Big Rule Book, that points to it as a Tzeentch cult...but who's to say a God based on the Imperium is going to be 'good' and 'hopeful'.

 

Does the Imperium have any positive traits? Tolerance? Love? Understanding?

 

lol a new God of the Imperium would be based on Ignorance, Hate, and Genocide.

[Sete]

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

Oh I wasn't answering you just B1. Just writing what was on my head.

[MrDarth151]

 

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

 

You gotta go back to realms of chaos for that buddy. There is a tiny story in the back of I think the 3rd edition Big Rule Book, that points to it as a Tzeentch cult...but who's to say a God based on the Imperium is going to be 'good' and 'hopeful'.

 

Does the Imperium have any positive traits? Tolerance? Love? Understanding?

 

lol a new God of the Imperium would be based on Ignorance, Hate, and Genocide.

 

 

Really, I thought Chaos Gods had those covered.

 

And hilariously, yes, actually, as far as racial and gender tolerance goes, Imperium of Mankind is significantly ahead of most modern world.

 

Why, percentage wise, High Lords, as of the modern incarnation from around the Fall of Cadia, have managed to include more female representation then vast majority of governments. I believe only six or seven countries ever had a cabinets with similar levels of representation. And I don't mean regularly. I mean at all.

 

And to be frank, the most Grimdark interpretations of the Imperium are so over the top they mostly reside in the same realm as parody. I was under impression that we are trying to be serious about this universe.

 

Or was that wrong too?

[Scribe]

 

 

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

 

You gotta go back to realms of chaos for that buddy. There is a tiny story in the back of I think the 3rd edition Big Rule Book, that points to it as a Tzeentch cult...but who's to say a God based on the Imperium is going to be 'good' and 'hopeful'.

 

Does the Imperium have any positive traits? Tolerance? Love? Understanding?

 

lol a new God of the Imperium would be based on Ignorance, Hate, and Genocide.

 

 

Really, I thought Chaos Gods had those covered.

 

And hilariously, yes, actually, as far as racial and gender tolerance goes, Imperium of Mankind is significantly ahead of most modern world.

 

Why, percentage wise, High Lords, as of the modern incarnation from around the Fall of Cadia, have managed to include more female representation then vast majority of governments. I believe only six or seven countries ever had a cabinets with similar levels of representation. And I don't mean regularly. I mean at all.

 

And to be frank, the most Grimdark interpretations of the Imperium are so over the top they mostly reside in the same realm as parody. I was under impression that we are trying to be serious about this universe.

 

Or was that wrong too?

 

 

No, that would be wrong too, see: any attempt to get realistic numbers into the setting, ever.

 

Talking about Gender Balance, in a Setting that has much more real issues of say...that Ork looking to rip your arms off, or the fact your hand now has an Eye looking at you sideways...yeah, who gives a :cuss if there is gender balance on the high lords table?

 

Nobody.

 

The setting is bigger than that, dealing with weightier issues. Like the fact (yes fact, as per the setting) that existential threats are ACTUALLY present that could tip over the boiling pot, and destroy the Imperium.

 

I mean you dont have to like it, I dont have to like things GW does to change it, but its not remotely logical to argue against the eventual destruction of the Imperium given the last 20 odd years.

 

It simply is not.

 

Gender balance...lol I dont see how that is at all relevant when a fleet of ships is going to nuke an important world over there, or an Inquisitor just called down a force of Grey Knights because Daemons have turned an entire hive into their personal 'entertainment video'.

[bluntblade]

Once you're a species of squillions against the Galaxy, ethnicity and gender likely fall by the wayside somewhat.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

 

Yes...but I'm just asking which source book has the Starchild theory, not what would happen if the Emp actually returns as a Starchild

 

You gotta go back to realms of chaos for that buddy. There is a tiny story in the back of I think the 3rd edition Big Rule Book, that points to it as a Tzeentch cult...but who's to say a God based on the Imperium is going to be 'good' and 'hopeful'.

 

Does the Imperium have any positive traits? Tolerance? Love? Understanding?

 

lol a new God of the Imperium would be based on Ignorance, Hate, and Genocide.

 

 

Really, I thought Chaos Gods had those covered.

 

And hilariously, yes, actually, as far as racial and gender tolerance goes, Imperium of Mankind is significantly ahead of most modern world.

 

Why, percentage wise, High Lords, as of the modern incarnation from around the Fall of Cadia, have managed to include more female representation then vast majority of governments. I believe only six or seven countries ever had a cabinets with similar levels of representation. And I don't mean regularly. I mean at all.

 

And to be frank, the most Grimdark interpretations of the Imperium are so over the top they mostly reside in the same realm as parody. I was under impression that we are trying to be serious about this universe.

 

Or was that wrong too?

 

 

No, that would be wrong too, see: any attempt to get realistic numbers into the setting, ever.

 

Talking about Gender Balance, in a Setting that has much more real issues of say...that Ork looking to rip your arms off, or the fact your hand now has an Eye looking at you sideways...yeah, who gives a if there is gender balance on the high lords table?

 

Nobody.

 

The setting is bigger than that, dealing with weightier issues. Like the fact (yes fact, as per the setting) that existential threats are ACTUALLY present that could tip over the boiling pot, and destroy the Imperium.

 

I mean you dont have to like it, I dont have to like things GW does to change it, but its not remotely logical to argue against the eventual destruction of the Imperium given the last 20 odd years.

 

It simply is not.

 

Gender balance...lol I dont see how that is at all relevant when a fleet of ships is going to nuke an important world over there, or an Inquisitor just called down a force of Grey Knights because Daemons have turned an entire hive into their personal 'entertainment video'.

 

 

As you said. Nobody. Just like being morally just doesn't exactly require much love, tolerance or understanding.

 

You can very easily be just without those things. I simply thought we were going on a tangent regarding pointless things?

 

Using terms like "Good". Heh. I don't think you have the first idea how absolutely horrible can a person be while still being good.

 

And please. Don't talk to me about logic. In your interpretation of 40k Imperium would not survive a century, much less ten millennia. Logically.

 

I find your interpretation of 40k boring, illogical and breaking my suspension of disbelief. So I will not adhere to it, since I don't precisely plan on suddenly starting to hate 40k, because fans of the franchise have taken upon themselves the task of convincing me that my favourite franchise actually sucks.

Edited October 26, 2017 by MrDarth151

[Scribe]

You can feel whatever you want, I already mentioned this.

 

One interpretation is actually factually correct to the lore, those who write the lore, and what the setting has consistently been for 2 decades.

 

The other, is your head canon.

 

Enjoy your head canon, it harms nobody, but you are factually wrong, and your willful denial and disagreement with people who actually WRITE the stuff, who have actual discourse with those who established what this setting is, doesnt make your position any more tenable. :]

 

EDIT: Conversation is over for me. Grimdark is, has been, and should be, the setting. Thats really the point of this thread.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Scribe

[Blood Angel Scout]

All said and done, "the players may have changed but the game remains the same", only thing is now, those who create the setting, probably grew up on the setting of 2/3rd so to see progression in the time line, return of the primarchs, new marines, new races/old ones nommed, expanding the lore from a few lines in a codex into novels or series-the fact the black library exists nowadays-doesn't surprise me because back then you (well, at least I used to) wanted to know more, would imagine what if or try to custom build a primarch...doesn't surprise me for a second that people of my generation, are behind the current developments yet still keeping the same themes/outcome that humanity is hanging on for survival by the barest thread...really hasn't changed at all.

 

The starchild theory is/was fleshed out via the Draco/Inquisition Wars series, think by Ian Watson, 2nd/3rd edition Era,around 20 years ago as well as his novel Space Marine, and although this has been retconned or the setting has developed since then, there are still elements that are consistent or to me feel like little "easter eggs" i.e the scene in Black Legion with eating the brains of the Templars for one example, takes me back to those early days for my first introductions to the hobby, and would recommend to anyone who's new to the game to look back at the "old days" Citadel catalogs or 2nd edition rulebook or Codex Imperialis-think that's what it was called- Dorn and Russ did have models once before, squats existed, tau didn't though don't think necrons did either...nevermind, the idea humanity is done rings all the way through,just postponing it....we, the readers, know this, just the characters don't

 

One other constant theme is if you don't like the current way things are going, who cares, 10,000 years and a whole galaxy to make up your own mini-system, cut off from the main setting...it's your dudes after all

[Xisor]

I'm still cut up about the death of the Warhammer World. I won't let it lie.

 

I'd rather catapult 40k into 100k or the blackest abyss if it meant we could rewrite the End Times.

[MrDarth151]

You can feel whatever you want, I already mentioned this.

 

One interpretation is actually factually correct to the lore, those who write the lore, and what the setting has consistently been for 2 decades.

 

The other, is your head canon.

 

Enjoy your head canon, it harms nobody, but you are factually wrong, and your willful denial and disagreement with people who actually WRITE the stuff, who have actual discourse with those who established what this setting is, doesnt make your position any more tenable. :]

 

EDIT: Conversation is over for me. Grimdark is, has been, and should be, the setting. Thats really the point of this thread.

 

*Shrug* I was never claiming to be right over people who write the franchise.

 

But you see, there is a difference between having something to be canon, and believing something is well written.

[mc warhammer]

MrDarth151, on 27 Oct 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

 

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.

 

 

the parallels can be drawn. its an amoral universe. nobody ever "wins". there are no heroic rewards that outweigh villainous gains.

 

but there are concepts of loyalty, honour and belief despite all that. though ASoFaI often shows that those concepts are foolish and wasted, perhaps more than 40k.

 

 

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

 

 

 

no it doesn't, but some of those other books that you've glossed over do. and some have proven to be both critically acclaimed and popular.  ya cheeky little cherry picker you.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

40k is also a universe of several sides, so that description of the universe is pretty rosey for some.

 

again, actions do matter on a personal level even against the greater framework. it's really not that different to how our every day actions matter, despite the fact that we will end up 6 feet under one day. despite that truth, you don't seem to have curled up into a ball. you're on a message board fighting the good fight. 

 

the relative ignorance of characters does not affect that. it might add to the tragedy depending on how you interpret the text. actions still have meaning. they still have consequence. 

 

and that's a blanket statement, a lot of 40k follows characters with varying degrees of knowledge about how their universe works. we can see powerful in-universe reactions to the "truth" of the universe played out in different ways (say, grey knights vs word bearers).

 

and that's where a healthy debate on 40k as nihilistic fiction can take place. despite the ultimate "truth" of the universe, i'd argue that the actions and beliefs of the characters don't always or necessarily enforce a nihilistic view or theme. and yes, that is important maybe even moreso in reaction to that larger framework

Edited October 27, 2017 by mc warhammer

[mc warhammer]

 

 

I find your interpretation of 40k boring, illogical and breaking my suspension of disbelief. So I will not adhere to it, since I don't precisely plan on suddenly starting to hate 40k, because fans of the franchise have taken upon themselves the task of convincing me that my favourite franchise actually sucks.

 

 

 

the beautiful thing is, all interpretations are valid in their own right

 

it's funny and...weird...that you're pretending that the fans of the franchise spontaneously tracked you down in order to harass you when you made the effort to come here and challenge one of the established fundamentals of the franchise as condescendingly as possible.

 

now that's what i call grimdark

[b1soul]

The setting is not static.

 

GW can do whatever they want with the setting to boost sales, attract new fans, etc. (just look what they did to WHFB).

 

In 40K, that could include injecting new hope (Guilliman, Primaris) while raising the level of threat (Great Rift, more Daemon Primarchs return).

 

To me, having the setting revolve around Grimdark is a bit...simplistic.

 

Grimdark should be an organic consequence of the circumstances surrounding the Imperium. At least, that's how I think Grimdark would be written well. Grimdark is lame when it feels like it's being forced down our throats just to satisfy a "40K must be super Grimdark" rule. Thankfully, I haven't read too much of the latter, and BL seems to aim for the former, employing Grimdark as a story element and not as an overpowering presence.

 

I guess I go back to my original statement. I feel it benefits the fiction when Grimdark is an important element but does not overpower the story or setting.

[mc warhammer]

The setting is not static.

 

GW can do whatever they want with the setting to boost sales, attract new fans, etc. (just look what they did to WHFB).

 

In 40K, that could include injecting new hope (Guilliman, Primaris) while raising the level of threat (Great Rift, more Daemon Primarchs return).

 

To me, having the setting revolve around Grimdark is a bit...simplistic.

 

Grimdark should be an organic consequence of the circumstances surrounding the Imperium. At least, that's how I think Grimdark would be written well. Grimdark is lame when it feels like it's being forced down our throats just to satisfy a "40K must be super Grimdark" rule. Thankfully, I haven't read too much of the latter, and BL seems to aim for the former, employing Grimdark as a story element and not as an overpowering presence.

 

I guess I go back to my original statement. I feel it benefits the fiction when Grimdark is an important element but does not overpower the story or setting.

 

generally speaking a setting or background tends to be set rather than "evolving". it gives the franchise it's parameters and defines its flavour as opposed to other similar franchises.

 

if you have a franchise set against the backdrop of ragnarok, removing ragnarok essentially changes it to a different concept

 

and yeah, most can be boiled down to "simple". generally those are the best, simple is what creatives and writers aim for.

 

 

i wouldn't be surprised if there are instances where it feels "forced", with a franchise this huge and old, you're bound to get variance in quality. i agree that a backdrop should really just act as a...well, backdrop.... and not the central thrust of a story.

 

so far i haven't read any novels 40k or 30k that have put it in the forefront 

[b1soul]

Probably also helpful to define Grimdark now that I've had time to muse over it...

 

Grimdark to me includes the following:

 

A. Incompetent, monolithic Imperial administration...each person is an infintisemally tiny cog of a sprawling, gargantuan machine.

 

B. Imperial disregard for individual human lives (ties into A)...only species survival matters

 

C. Imperial hatred of all Xenos

 

D. Impending collapse/destruction of the Imperium...a tide of enemies pressing in from outside and undermining from within

 

The ultimate objective of the Imperium is preservation of mankind (and human supremacy if possible). It's also a fact that the Imperium has managed to survive for over 10,000 years.

 

Therefore, the Grimdark elements above should, in my view, be somewhat constrained by the Imperium's objective and the Imperium's ability to survive for millenia.

 

For example...the level of incompetence or disregard for human life should not be such that the idea of the Imperium's survival for ten millenia becomes laughable or absurd. The Imperium's hatred of Xenos should not be so over-done that it would rather be annihilated than borrow a bit of alien tech.

 

Now, within the Imperium, there should be a spectrum of irrationality/extremism vs. rationality/forethought. That's fine...but I don't think the balance should so skewed toward the former that the setting loses basic verisimilitude becomes an absurd self-parody, if you will.

 

It seems that in the past several years, GW/BL has actually been exploring Human-Xenos alliances and rational elements within the Imperium...and for that, I am grateful.

Edited October 27, 2017 by b1soul

[mc warhammer]

Probably also helpful to define Grimdark now that I've had time to muse over it...

 

Grimdark to me includes the following:

 

A. Incompetent, monolithic Imperial administration...each person is an infintisemally tiny cog of a sprawling, gargantuan machine.

 

B. Imperial disregard for individual human lives (ties into A)...only species survival matters

 

C. Imperial hatred of all Xenos

 

D. Impending collapse/destruction of the Imperium...a tide of enemies pressing in from outside and undermining from within

 

The ultimate objective of the Imperium is preservation of mankind (and human supremacy if possible). It's also a fact that the Imperium has managed to survive for over 10,000 years.

 

Therefore, the Grimdark elements above should, in my view, be somewhat constrained by the Imperium's objective and the Imperium's ability to survive for millenia.

 

For example...the level of incompetence or disregard for human life should not be such that the idea of the Imperium's survival for ten millenia becomes laughable or absurd. The Imperium's hatred of Xenos should not be so over-done that it would rather be annihilated than borrow a bit of alien tech.

 

Now, within the Imperium, there should be a spectrum of irrationality/extremism vs. rationality/forethought. That's fine...but I don't think the balance should so skewed toward the former that the setting loses basic verisimilitude becomes an absurd self-parody, if you will.

 

It seems that GW/BL has actually been moving away from extreme Grimdark as of late, and for that, I am grateful

 

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't some of the excess over the years come from the fact that 40k did originally begin as a parody? or at least had strong satirical elements.

 

and yeah, i think i've been talking about grimdark in a different context to what you've just defined.

[Scribe]

Yeah thats not Grimdark. Thats the function of the Imperium + the "hey guys we need to allow allies, lets have Necrons bro fist with Blood Angels".

 

Grimdark is Wrath of Iron. Grimdark is nobody comes out ahead, especially the Imperium, by the end of the Novel, unless they become monsters to do so. To say "OMG I'll never pick up that Eldar blade, even if I MUST DIE" is not Grimdark.

 

To have a puritanical Inquisitor condemn a soldier to death for touching an Eldar blade AFTER the battle? Especially if it saved his life?

 

Grimdark.

[b1soul]

Grimdark is Wrath of Iron. Grimdark is nobody comes out ahead, especially the Imperium, by the end of the Novel, unless they become monsters to do so. To say "OMG I'll never pick up that Eldar blade, even if I MUST DIE" is not Grimdark. To have a puritanical Inquisitor condemn a soldier to death for touching an Eldar blade AFTER the battle? Especially if it saved his life? Grimdark.

So to you, Grimdark is any plot point involving monstrous (by 21st century standards) behaviour, crushing defeat, bleak irony?

[Scribe]

Those are some of the things yes, but it goes even higher level. When I say Grimdark is the setting, I mean it fundamentally is. You can have Grimdark without the Imperium at all, as the Eldar (before this recent :cuss up) were very much on point.

 

A race that has either abandoned its culture and reverted to primalism (Exodites) embraced its culture at the very real cost of its soul (DE) or have resigned themselves to living a path, that they more and more often than not become trapped on, leading to an eventual (hmm didnt we discuss 'eventual') extinction of the race (Craftworld).

 

Everything about the Eldar was grimdark, as it was a race that had achieved the hights of glory, and then through its own actions sealed its demise. GW even went and made things WORSE by having Khaines Gate or whatever it is removing even the DE's way out of fate.

 

Grimdark to me, is making it plain that our values, 21st century ones, have no place, and are detrimental to existence. 

 

Wrath of Iron is just one of several perfect examples.

 

1. Internal Faction in fighting - AdMech, Guard, and Iron Hands all betray each-other.

2. Man is fodder - What the Iron Hands do to the Guard early in the book. What the Iron Hands do when rushing the gates (lead from the front humans!)

3. Man is dark - The Assassin is clearly 'evil' by most current definitions, yet he is a hero of the story, and eventually we know is to be claimed by a Chaos God.

4. There is a realm darker - The reaction of the Humans, fighting the Daemons at first is about how most of us would actually react.

5. To slay a monster, become a monster - The Iron Hands, and their eventual purge.

 

Wrath of Iron is an Imperial VICTORY, and yet at the end of the book other than letting out a deep breath, did it feel like one? With our Marine Protagonist embracing what he is? Does it feel like Victory?

 

No. It feels like the species has lost its humanity, in the face of survival, and that is what Grimdark is. Its what 40K is.

 

Forget about the unrealistic numbers, the defeats and losses in the millions, thats not the point of 40K thats just over the top stuff for flash and effect

 

40K is about the crushing of the soul of humanity, the acceptance that there is no point other than denial of fate for as long as one can handle it, before either becoming a monster, or falling to madness or getting killed. There is no happy ending, and that too, is the point.

 

Look at Helsreach, we have a great human to experience the story with, and what happens to him? He lives, but those around him? Nope. Snuff that candle of hope, she's dead.

 

Look at the Ahriman books, when those Wolves think they finally caught their prey and its actually GK they attack, and they have become the corrupt monsters they hoped to hunt and the Rune Priest gets killed by his pack leader? One more candle gone.

 

Grimdark IS 40K. Fundamentally, in its bones, its about the fact that there is no point, but to put one foot in front of the next and keep fighting because 'there is only war and the eternal laughter of thirsting gods.'

 

It just is, and people can complain that its not well written, or that its grimdumb, or whatever other criticisms they want, but 40K for 20 years has been about these things, we have a community and REAMS of text because of these things, and HOPE and NOBLE and BRIGHT have NOTHING to do with it.

[b1soul]

A lot of more recent BL fiction does not revolve around Grimdark IMO. Tales like Wrath of Iron and Damnation of Pythos are exceptions, not the norm. This is because variety is the spice of not just life, but also of literature. If Grimdark, as you describe it, is laid on too thick in every story, it becomes overbearing.

 

As for your description of Grimdark, it sounds like a combination of existential nihilism and fatalism...

 

failure (including moral failure) cannot be avoided

 

at best, mankind continues to survive, just barely, trapped in a living hell

 

life is thus devoid of any higher purpose

 

These themes do manifest via several tropes often appearing in 40K, e.g. monolithic, uncaring, and incompetent adminstration, utter disregard for the value of individual life, etc.

Edited October 27, 2017 by b1soul

[Scribe]

 

As for your description of Grimdark, it sounds like a combination of existential nihilism and fatalism, i.e.

life has no higher purpose

failure (including moral failure) cannot be avoided

at best, mankind continues to survive, just barely, trapped in a living hell

 

Yes, this is 40K. I mean we are evolved animals, there is no purpose but what we define. :]

 

As for more recent BL fiction...pre-8th, nothing I read disagreed with my premise. 

 

Sure GW could change it, market for a younger crowd that didnt grow up during the 80's and 90's as Grimdark was formulated and codified, but...I have never argued that they couldn't. After all, they killed a great setting before, for one that is...formless at this point, so sure they could ruin 40K also.

 

Grimdark = 40K for the last 20 years, and it was good.

 

Thats it.

[MrDarth151]

Back to this again.

 

 

 

MrDarth151, on 27 Oct 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

 

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.

 

 

the parallels can be drawn. its an amoral universe. nobody ever "wins". there are no heroic rewards that outweigh villainous gains.

 

but there are concepts of loyalty, honour and belief despite all that. though ASoFaI often shows that those concepts are foolish and wasted, perhaps more than 40k.

 

But that... Okay, time out. What do you think existential nihilism is? Because what you describe here is not existential nihilism.

 

We can say that's a moral nihilism, but that is also arguable, considering how the books are written.

 

 

 

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

 

 

no it doesn't, but some of those other books that you've glossed over do. and some have proven to be both critically acclaimed and popular.  ya cheeky little cherry picker you.

 

Talk about that which you know. I'm simply far more familiar with the works of Satre and Heidegger. Comes with the territory.

 

Have you read Satre, for example? Classic. Quite intellectually stimulating. Fascinating from the point of existentialism. And also a chore to read. For me, and I've read more philosophy than most people will in their lifetime.

 

Existential literature is heavy. It isn't something you want to base your franchise around.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

40k is also a universe of several sides, so that description of the universe is pretty rosey for some.

 

 

And I feel you are missing my point.

 

 

again, actions do matter on a personal level even against the greater framework. it's really not that different to how our every day actions matter, despite the fact that we will end up 6 feet under one day. despite that truth, you don't seem to have curled up into a ball. you're on a message board fighting the good fight.

 

Death has a little meaning when it comes to existential nihilism. The metaphysical aspect of our existence is largely unknowable.

 

This is a mistake I've seen made by both writers and readers of the 40k. Death comparisons, entropy comparisons, do not really hold weight. You are not arguing them when taking up Grimdark in 40k. Every person born into 40k universe is sentenced, from birth, to an eternity of torture. You cannot save, they cannot save themselves, and this fate is unavoidable.

 

 

the relative ignorance of characters does not affect that. it might add to the tragedy depending on how you interpret the text. actions still have meaning. they still have consequence.

 

What meaning? What consequences?

 

 

and that's where a healthy debate on 40k as nihilistic fiction can take place. despite the ultimate "truth" of the universe, i'd argue that the actions and beliefs of the characters don't always or necessarily enforce a nihilistic view or theme. and yes, that is important maybe even moreso in reaction to that larger framework

 

And I'd argue that just because you choose to ignore the greater theme, it doesn't stop being there.

 

How is that any different from what I do? You tell me those actions and beliefs run contrary to the nihilistic theme, and I ask how, exactly? Winning or losing, you are still going to end up as Daemon chow. What does it matter that you grant people additional twenty years of existence, if they are still doomed post-mortem? You only allow them to create more souls for the pyre.

 

Good, any good, you might achieve is ultimately pointless. This isn't argument about entropy. Entropy is at it's core ANTI-nihilistic, because if we all die and there is nothing beyond that, then it matters how we lived our lives and how did we influenced the lives of others. Your actions matter.

 

In 40k? The very act of allowing your child to be born is an act of supreme malice and nothing you will ever do will make up for it. Having off-spring is tantamount to sentencing another human being to eventual eternity of suffering. How will you make up for it? By making their lives in the materium a slight bit less miserable, or few years longer? What does that achieve?

 

Remember the last word of The Emperor of Mankind before his entombment upon the Golden Throne?

 

"Now all of you go! You know your duties. Execute them well. The universe has many horrors yet to throw at us. This is not the end of our struggle. This is just the beginning of our crusade to save Humanity. Be faithful! Be strong! Be vigilant!"

 

You know what I want from 40k? I want the universe where this:

 

"Now go! Kill every last human that still lives in this galaxy of terrors, and salt the earth so that we can never rise again. Ensure that Humanity is extinct!"

 

Is NOT a morally superior option. Which, in the current canon? It is. The best thing you can do for humanity in 40k universe is to wipe them out.

 

 

 

 

 

I find your interpretation of 40k boring, illogical and breaking my suspension of disbelief. So I will not adhere to it, since I don't precisely plan on suddenly starting to hate 40k, because fans of the franchise have taken upon themselves the task of convincing me that my favourite franchise actually sucks.

 

 

 

the beautiful thing is, all interpretations are valid in their own right

 

it's funny and...weird...that you're pretending that the fans of the franchise spontaneously tracked you down in order to harass you when you made the effort to come here and challenge one of the established fundamentals of the franchise as condescendingly as possible.

 

now that's what i call grimdark

 

 

It's not really condescension. It's bitterness.

 

Grimdark to me, is making it plain that our values, 21st century ones, have no place, and are detrimental to existence.

 

Yeah, this would work a lot better if Grimdark wasn't constantly portrayed as less effective than the alternative solutions.

[DukeLeto69]

Some of the arguments on this thread about the nature or meaning of Grimdark (and how things have evolved a bit in recent times, including allowing alliances with Xenos) miss one fundamental point...

 

W40k is a game setting not a literature setting. It is devised to enable GW to sell toy soldiers and model kits. Alliances between different factions was all about selling more kits because it opened up possibilities and, arguably, allowed friends to join up in battles providing more flexibility on the tabletop.

 

It is clear from the passion expressed on this thread that different people have different interpretations and that is cool. The setting is so huge that it is theoretically possible for different conditions to exist on different planets to explain away all manner of inconsistencies.

 

For me personally (ie IMHO) I far prefer the setting and literature to be as dark and grim as possible. I want it to be hopeless. The last strangled cry of a dying species that refuses to go without a fight. I want our 21st Century beliefs in what humanity stands for to be completely subverted and for us to be disgusted by what we become 38k years from now. I like the idea that the "good guys" are actually completely evil by our present day standards. I like the fact that they have become so introverted and stagnant and completely xenophobic. One of the purposes of dystopian science fiction is to shine a lens on the present and provide a warning for how things could turn out in the future! 40k does that very well in my opinion.

 

For me the author who is currently capturing this the best is Peter Fehervari. He is not my favourite BL author, that would be Dan Abnett followed by ADB and then Peter Fehervari (he needs more commissions and books to elevate his position).