Can you be a true 40K fan...

[Apothecary Vaddon]

Man, if only the views of forum going Authors and Editors was in the codices....

 

Yep, moving on from the passive aggressive smileys and arrogance. Off you go to the ignore list!

[WarriorFish]

Play nice please, agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks.

[Wargamer]

I think some distinction needs to be made between GrimDark and GrimDerp. Grimdark was most certainly pouring through every vein and pore of 40K when I started in 3rd edition - it was a hellscape setting with mountains of skulls, people mutilated and deformed in nightmarish ways, and any concept of mercy or justice had been abandoned in the name of zealotic religious purity... and those were the good guys!

 

But what it wasn't was hopeless. There was nothing to suggest the Imperium was doomed - in fact, the lore made it quite clear that the Imperium was so massive it was simply impossible to apply such a concept as "winning and losing". The Imperium might bleed a hundred billion souls away as a dozen systems fall to Chaos, but a thousand light years away a dozen more systems had been reclaimed. The Imperium wasn't stagnant either; it was perpetually in motion, rediscovering lost technology as quickly as older knowledge was forgotten.

 

But all of this resulted in an ultimately cyclic system. The Imperium wasn't moving forward, but running laps. The future was as it had been for ten thousand years; a jackboot stamping on the face of humanity (and Xenos kind) over and over, forever and ever. It would never change, it would never improve, it would never end. There was only war, there had only been war, and war was all there would ever be until the entire galaxy's resources had been consumed by the eternal conflict.

 

Then came GrimDerp.

 

Now the Imperium was doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed! The Golden Throne was failing! Essential technologies required to keep the Imperium fighting had been lost and nothing was being found to replace them! The alien races were stronger than ever! Chaos was stronger than ever! There is no possible way you can ever win! YOU'VE ALREADY LOST! All that's left to do is put on black eyeliner and write depressing poetry!

 

That's not grimdark. Finality is not grimdark. Grimdark is where you create something so terrible that death would be a welcome release, and then you make the system immortal so it can never die.

 

Against that backdrop, you can have all the valour and heroism you like. Because pure and noble heroes are just pointless in a setting where everyone's going to die anyway, and the evil guys are ultimately going to win so you don't have any sense of agency; they're just trying to farm xp before the campaign ends so they can finish higher on the podium.

 

But Grimdark screws both sides. You can have a Chapter of Lawful Good Paladins if you like; they're all going to die and the Imperium will still be ruled by the bastard lovechild of Adolf Hitler and the CEO of Electronic Arts. But conversely, you can have as many baby-eating monsters as you like; sooner or later, they'll take a bolt round to the face and the Chaos Gods will eat their souls and it'll be as though they never existed.

 

The war will continue without them, despite them, and their names and deeds will be buried beneath the corpses of a billion other champions just as noteworthy, and all of them will be beneath notice.

 

For the universe is a big place and, whatever happens, you will not be missed.

[Scribe]

Please dig out your 3rd Edition pamphlets Codex's, and look them over. The Imperium was in a state of wider disrepair then, than they have been since!

 

I clearly remember the story of a Marine chastising himself over lamenting the loss of technological knowledge and the fact his armour is less responsive than it once was.

 

3rd was way closer to 'We dont even know what we have lost' than we have had in 4th and above.

 

In your opinion when (chronologically or Edition) was this rubicon crossed from Dark to Derp?

 

But Grimdark screws both sides. You can have a Chapter of Lawful Good Paladins if you like; they're all going to die and the Imperium will still be ruled by the bastard lovechild of Adolf Hitler and the CEO of Electronic Arts. But conversely, you can have as many baby-eating monsters as you like; sooner or later, they'll take a bolt round to the face and the Chaos Gods will eat their souls and it'll be as though they never existed.

 

 

This was gold though. :p

[Wargamer]

I think it was 5th when GW declared that the Golden Throne was now irreparably damaged and the Astronomicon was dying, resulting in the impending heat death of the setting.

 

You are right that 3rd had those elements - that's part of the cyclic view I mentioned. The Imperium didn't know what it had lost; they also knew what they were losing. Vanquisher tanks were becoming scarce as the only planet in the Imperium that built them had fallen, and now the Guard would send hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths if it meant recovering a single vanquisher tank, or a supply crate full of the shells.

 

But 3rd also saw innovation. Armageddon saw the birth of the Marauder Destroyer, giving the Imperium one of the most magnificent flyers to ever grace the skies of Man's domain. Every passing Space Hulk held the promise of finding some lost relic that would revolutionise the Mechanicum. For all that the Imperium was crumbling, it was also clear that they were also always on the cusp of discovering something that would make them stronger in some way to compensate.

 

I'm pretty sure 5th took a dump on that idea as well.

[b1soul]

The only aspect of Grimdark I truly oppose is any omniscient narrator declaration that the Imperium is absolutely guaranteed to collapse in the near-future. To me, that's just bad story-telling.

If this is truly "just a setting", why inject that level of outcome certainty through word of god? It adds nothing. If circumstances are dire, let them speak for themselves.

Hope that makes my position clear.

[Roomsky]

See, if y`all would just embrace the beauty of death of the author, you'd be so much happier.

[b1soul]

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war

[mc warhammer]

The only aspect of Grimdark I truly oppose is any omniscient narrator declaration that the Imperium is absolutely guaranteed to collapse in the near-future. To me, that's just bad story-telling.

 

 

 

yeah nah, its not bad story telling. bad story telling is, well, bad story telling

 

there's nothing bad about finality. ragnaroks, age of elves giving way to man, the apolocalypse. none of those make a story bad per se.

 

it might not be to taste, and its probably not the common thing to do, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about it.

See, if y`all would just embrace the beauty of death of the author, you'd be so much happier.

 

do you mean barthes' death of the author or the internet's idea of death of the author?

[mc warhammer]

mc warhammer,

 

Happily, my B&C handle is my real-life first name. If I claim descent from a Missing Legion, can I get out of the family argument requirement - seeing as how anything I would say would be redacted?

 

ok, the fact i thought your actual name was worthy of an astartes is both embarrassing on my part and very cool on yours

 

and yeah, when in doubt....redact!

[Roomsky]

 

do you mean barthes' death of the author or the internet's idea of death of the author?

 

 

Yes.

 

Much as I'd like to leave it at that, broadly I just mean the good ol` tenant that the author has no bearing on their work after it is published. Now, I love that Aaron and Robbie and Laurie and occasionally others pop by on the forums to explain things from their perspective, and if I had the opportunity I'd love to sit down with them for hours and talk about their views of the setting, and what they intended for their works. But, as interesting as Word of God is, I'd never hold equal to their published work. An author stating their story isn't bad because they intended it to be liked has no more bearing than an author saying a nuance in their story isn't real because it was accidental, or an afterward saying humanity is doomed before the tide of Chaos. 

 

Now, if the Big E says "Humanity is doomed, Malcador," all that tells me is that The Emperor thinks humanity is doomed. He's clearly not omniscient, taking his word as fact is like taking Ingethel's "naw man, Chaos loves humanity," as fact. 

 

What I'm saying is its pointless to wrack ones brain over references and citations to prove ones' opinion as fact because it can't be done. Ones' interpretation of 40k, be it an author's or a Frater's, is precisely as legitimate as everyone else's, provided they're willing to explain why their interpretation is that way. Back to the specific example, until a codex says flat out:

 

"And then everyone died"

 

GW could always pull another Belisarius Cawl out of their asses and have him fix the golden throne or some such.

[Scribe]

 

The only aspect of Grimdark I truly oppose is any omniscient narrator declaration that the Imperium is absolutely guaranteed to collapse in the near-future. To me, that's just bad story-telling.

 

 

 

yeah nah, its not bad story telling. bad story telling is, well, bad story telling

 

there's nothing bad about finality. ragnaroks, age of elves giving way to man, the apolocalypse. none of those make a story bad per se.

 

it might not be to taste, and its probably not the common thing to do, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about it.

 

 

I have no idea how this is difficult.

 

 

 

 

do you mean barthes' death of the author or the internet's idea of death of the author?

 

 

What I'm saying is its pointless to wrack ones brain over references and citations to prove ones' opinion as fact because it can't be done. Ones' interpretation of 40k, be it an author's or a Frater's, is precisely as legitimate as everyone else's, provided they're willing to explain why their interpretation is that way.

 

I really cannot accept that. Some random person who has feelings for a certain angle of interpretation does not have the same level of legitimacy as someone working behind the curtain. 

 

Why would I ever, ever, take some random's opinion as having more weight, as say...Gav? 

 

To leave the current topic, its recently been confirmed 'Sanguinius is dead dead'. Nobody with sense needed that confirmation, but there it is.

 

I'm not going to give ANY attention, or weight to someone coming on here saying 'No look guys, it could be this.'

 

No, just stop. He's dead, and the less we have to sift through for real information, and actual valuable discussion, the better.

 

I like canon. I like settings being consistent within themselves. If someone just comes into a discussion with their feelings, or ideas, and its completely unsupported? There is no merit in that outside a thought experiment, and it CERTAINLY isnt as valid as actual word of god, from people who actually know the answers and establish what is canon.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

do you mean barthes' death of the author or the internet's idea of death of the author?

 

 

Yes.

 

Much as I'd like to leave it at that, broadly I just mean the good ol` tenant that the author has no bearing on their work after it is published. Now, I love that Aaron and Robbie and Laurie and occasionally others pop by on the forums to explain things from their perspective, and if I had the opportunity I'd love to sit down with them for hours and talk about their views of the setting, and what they intended for their works. But, as interesting as Word of God is, I'd never hold equal to their published work. An author stating their story isn't bad because they intended it to be liked has no more bearing than an author saying a nuance in their story isn't real because it was accidental, or an afterward saying humanity is doomed before the tide of Chaos. 

 

Now, if the Big E says "Humanity is doomed, Malcador," all that tells me is that The Emperor thinks humanity is doomed. He's clearly not omniscient, taking his word as fact is like taking Ingethel's "naw man, Chaos loves humanity," as fact. 

 

What I'm saying is its pointless to wrack ones brain over references and citations to prove ones' opinion as fact because it can't be done. Ones' interpretation of 40k, be it an author's or a Frater's, is precisely as legitimate as everyone else's, provided they're willing to explain why their interpretation is that way. Back to the specific example, until a codex says flat out:

 

"And then everyone died"

 

GW could always pull another Belisarius Cawl out of their asses and have him fix the golden throne or some such.

 

 

 

yeah, sure ok, we'll leave death of the author out of this then.

 

i get your point. everyone's own interpretation is all that matters. head canon is king and all that. a creative can not control a work once it has been given over to the public.

 

but.

 

a personal interpretation is not set in stone either. it can be fluid and it can often change or sharpen when coming into contact with other interpretations. especially the author's own (and again, each person will have their own interpretation of the author's interpretation and so on).

 

and there's a certain level of agreed upon reality that makes, well, reality work for all of us. that's the space we're in here. there are agreed upon facts in the books that i doubt anyone here would disagree on. it's all the other stuff around it that encourages debate.

 

saying that GW and BL don't intend for humanity to be doomed is a little dicier than saying my personal reading is that is not the case.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

The only aspect of Grimdark I truly oppose is any omniscient narrator declaration that the Imperium is absolutely guaranteed to collapse in the near-future. To me, that's just bad story-telling.

 

 

 

yeah nah, its not bad story telling. bad story telling is, well, bad story telling

 

there's nothing bad about finality. ragnaroks, age of elves giving way to man, the apolocalypse. none of those make a story bad per se.

 

it might not be to taste, and its probably not the common thing to do, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about it.

 

 

I have no idea how this is difficult.

 

 

 

 

do you mean barthes' death of the author or the internet's idea of death of the author?

 

 

What I'm saying is its pointless to wrack ones brain over references and citations to prove ones' opinion as fact because it can't be done. Ones' interpretation of 40k, be it an author's or a Frater's, is precisely as legitimate as everyone else's, provided they're willing to explain why their interpretation is that way.

 

I really cannot accept that. Some random person who has feelings for a certain angle of interpretation does not have the same level of legitimacy as someone working behind the curtain. 

 

Why would I ever, ever, take some random's opinion as having more weight, as say...Gav? 

 

To leave the current topic, its recently been confirmed 'Sanguinius is dead dead'. Nobody with sense needed that confirmation, but there it is.

 

I'm not going to give ANY attention, or weight to someone coming on here saying 'No look guys, it could be this.'

 

No, just stop. He's dead, and the less we have to sift through for real information, and actual valuable discussion, the better.

 

I like canon. I like settings being consistent within themselves. If someone just comes into a discussion with their feelings, or ideas, and its completely unsupported? There is no merit in that outside a thought experiment, and it CERTAINLY isnt as valid as actual word of god, from people who actually know the answers and establish what is canon.

 

 

it depends.

 

everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

 

opinions from an expert, authority or professional in their field should be respected as more knowledgeable.  if abd is discussing writing techniques, then we'd all do well to listen and learn.

 

but i do think a personal interpretation is just that. and nobody can change that or take that from you. nor should they. and sometimes, an author or creative might be unaware of some of the effects of their own work until a fan points it out. it does happen. joss whedon comes to mind.

 

all art is a 2 way dialogue between artist and audience.

 

 

 

 

that being said though, humanity is DOOOOOMED

[Scribe]

Thats exactly what I've said 'Sure, you do you.'

 

But facts are facts, and when supported by people who actually control, and form, and write the IP, and establish what is actual truth. Well clearly I am on the 'no your interpretation is not as valid as Gav's or ADB's, or Laurie's' because those guys are not working on interpretation at all.

 

Queue someone else I havent ignored yet calling me arrogant.

[Roomsky]

To avoid the thread spiraling into further madness I will clarify that I'm not demanding people adopt my POV. My point was a pithy statement about how accepting the settings looseness may benefit your blood pressure.

 

To clarify though, I'm not saying all opinions are equally legitimate, but that authoring a work gives you no greater legitimacy when speaking outside said work. I agree the Imperium is doomed, but its not because an author said so in an interview. It's because an armada of works communicated that to me in-universe. Such a message may not be communicated to everyone, and if they can make a cogent argument in that direction then I'm not going to argue they aren't a true fan. It's like if it came out that the Mona Lisa was intended to depict a Zebra with machineguns for legs; it doesn't make the work other than what we've interpreted as a smiling woman.

[Scribe]

I'm fine will all that Roomsky, except your unwillingness to join us in the death spiral of the Imperium this thread.

[Donkey Kong]

 

I like canon. I like settings being consistent within themselves. If someone just comes into a discussion with their feelings, or ideas, and its completely unsupported? There is no merit in that outside a thought experiment, and it CERTAINLY isnt as valid as actual word of god, from people who actually know the answers and establish what is canon.

 

Warhammer 40,000 doesn't have a canonical absolute truth dictated by word of god. As mc warhammer has already said, in this universe head canon is king.

[Scribe]

 

 

I like canon. I like settings being consistent within themselves. If someone just comes into a discussion with their feelings, or ideas, and its completely unsupported? There is no merit in that outside a thought experiment, and it CERTAINLY isnt as valid as actual word of god, from people who actually know the answers and establish what is canon.

 

Warhammer 40,000 doesn't have a canonical absolute truth dictated by word of god. As mc warhammer has already said, in this universe head canon is king.

 

 

Sure.

[mc warhammer]

 It's like if it came out that the Mona Lisa was intended to depict a Zebra with machineguns for legs; it doesn't make the work other than what we've interpreted as a smiling woman.

 

i'm sure i've trotted this one out before, so apologies to anyone who has read it previously. it's a pomo favourite:

 

3 people read the same sign dogs must be carried on the escalator at all times

 

person 1 thinks "oh, if i want to take a dog on the escalator then i must carry it"

 

person 2 thinks "oh, use of this escalator requires that i must have a dog with me"

 

person 3 thinks "oh, how what a beautiful ode to man and best friend"

 

they're all valid

 

 

 

but there's probably only one of these peeps i'd get a beer with

[Phoebus]

I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

I think it's great that the canon is loose enough for those who love it to hold to their own views of it. I also think it's great that more than one author or editor has frequented this forum and reinforced that creative interpretation and freedom is important to this setting. I especially appreciate how quick those creative authorities are to remind us that so much of what they describe in their stories is told from an imperfect perspective: that what Nathaniel Garro, Ragnar Blackmane, or Alexi Lev Tieron say and think simply reflects their own perspective. That perspective can vary from biased to incomplete to very informed, depending on the story, but it's never safe to assume it's perfect. On the other hand, the idea that the author's perspective can be ignored after the fact being used as a blanket argument strikes me as... almost a sort of willful ignorance. For example, if there is confusion (valid or not) about what a character meant and the author provides clarification, what is the point of dismissing him?

[DukeLeto69]

Man o man I am always so in awe and impressed by both the eloquence and passion various fandoms have over their particular IP. Some of the arguments put forward on this thread have been a joy to read. You guys (regardless of your differing opinions) put forward some excellent points of view.

 

One thing I have not seen so much of is the "reality check" so I will drop that in (someone has to be THAT guy)...

 

GW are a business and like any business their primary purpose is to generate shareholder value through increased net profits. Simple. If GW found that shifting the focus of W40k to a more noble bright approach sold twice as many minis and kits then you can be sure that regardless of the personal opinions of the CEO and Board the pressure from shareholders would be to continue with that Noble Bright shift.

 

Would I like that. God damn it no! Other folks on here far more eloquent than me have already put forward the views that I share but I will say that for ME the darkness and futility of the Grimdark setting is what drew me into 40k in the beginning (in 1987 no less) and has kept me here ever since (reading fiction and lore if no longer playing since the mid 90s). Someone said above (and I will paraphrase) that humanity will stoop to what ever level of depravity or horror in order to just survive despite the futility of their actions. THAT is the essence of Grimdark. It is not so much that it is hopeless but that that humanity refuses to acknowledge that hopelessness or futility.

 

Remember WE as readers/players know the fate that awaits the player characters in this game. WE know the extend of the Tyranid threat. WE know the Necron Tombs are waking (and their history) etc etc. The people living in the Imperium DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE KNOW. So they fight on and become ever more draconian in trying to control the population and mobilise for all out war in an effort to survive.

 

The hopelessness is only known to us as readers/players and to me that makes the whole thing even more poetic.

 

I personally want that element to the setting to remain. I like the setting moving forward from 2 mins to midnight to 1 min to midnight (this personally had GW been MY company I would have given myself more wriggle room to begin with and start in the 80s as 10 mins to midnight LOL).

 

The return of a Primarch is designed to sell stuff and inject a buzz. It has worked so more of that will happen.

 

As I type it also occurs to me that actually RG returning and his attempts and making the Imperium a better place is actually even more poetic (sorry tired so can't think of a better word right now) in the fact that ultimately his intentions, ambitions and hopes are doomed to failure and futile because WE the readers/players know what is coming!!!!!

[mc warhammer]

but that's the question really; will a move away from grimdark (whatever the feck that actually means) result in an upswing in sales? i mean, tabletop wargaming is niche. you're never gonna propel it into the mainstream, no matter how much you neuter the setting or try and make it more appealing to the general public.

 

there are certain things that seem like marketing wisdoms: meta story sells (which i don't think is the same as advancing the plot necessarily). primarchs sell. novelty sells.

 

adding those things in and coming up with the gathering storm adds some extra flavouring to the setting...but does it change it? or does it  slot into the tragedy, as dukeleto69 implies?

 

the only proof that i've see that 40k is less grimdark is that the artwork is less and less blanche of late

[Wargamer]

 

It's like if it came out that the Mona Lisa was intended to depict a Zebra with machineguns for legs; it doesn't make the work other than what we've interpreted as a smiling woman.

i'm sure i've trotted this one out before, so apologies to anyone who has read it previously. it's a pomo favourite:

 

3 people read the same sign dogs must be carried on the escalator at all times

 

person 1 thinks "oh, if i want to take a dog on the escalator then i must carry it"

 

person 2 thinks "oh, use of this escalator requires that i must have a dog with me"

 

person 3 thinks "oh, how what a beautiful ode to man and best friend"

 

they're all valid

 

 

 

but there's probably only one of these peeps i'd get a beer with

No they aren't. Only the first one is valid because that instruction was written to prevent harm to the animal and / or the person using the escalator.

[Wargamer]

To return to having a useful conversation...

 

To avoid the thread spiraling into further madness I will clarify that I'm not demanding people adopt my POV. My point was a pithy statement about how accepting the settings looseness may benefit your blood pressure.

 

To clarify though, I'm not saying all opinions are equally legitimate, but that authoring a work gives you no greater legitimacy when speaking outside said work. I agree the Imperium is doomed, but its not because an author said so in an interview. It's because an armada of works communicated that to me in-universe. Such a message may not be communicated to everyone, and if they can make a cogent argument in that direction then I'm not going to argue they aren't a true fan. It's like if it came out that the Mona Lisa was intended to depict a Zebra with machineguns for legs; it doesn't make the work other than what we've interpreted as a smiling woman.

Part of the problem we have is that your interpretation of humanity being doomed is likely built upon newer sources that were increasingly written by newer authors.

 

In other words, we could be looking at a situation where, as I mentioned before, the Imperium was not doomed, nor ever meant to be doomed - it was meant to be a nightmare status quo where the war went on forever.

 

But then the old guard left and other people came in to carry on the work, and they read the opening two paragraphs and said "okay, everyone's doomed!" and completely failed to read the bits that said otherwise.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened, but if you were going to flanderise 40k then turning it into DoomDoomer Doomtythousand is probably how you'd do it.