Can you be a true 40K fan...

[mc warhammer]

So, I've got a batch job running, so I have some time.

 

Its not that I dont like the answer. Its my inability to grok the answer, with what I based on many clear cut examples accept as factual information.

 

The easy one is 'Space Marines begin life as Male'.

 

Now, we can argue out of game that that is a short sighted choice made as a sign of the times. All one need to do is look at how Sigmarines were handled on release, and then many months later, we have some females.

 

For the sake of argument, lets accept however that within the game lore, SM = Dudes.

 

Wargamer does not agree. Thats their choice, and based on the last few posts here thats a valid choice to make because the canon is loose.

 

You call in minutiae, I call it one piece of the tapestry, all of which form the basis of the setting within which the story is told.

 

So...I just cant move past this, not from a 'no I cannot be wrong' but from a

 

A != B

A == C

Therefore  C != B

 

Type situation.

 

Honestly, I would rather have an official 'yes you are wrong', because despite examples to the contrary, I would rather adjust my stance, than remain incorrect in my assumption of truth.

 

batch job? are you an editor/animator?

 

is this all possibly a case of taking the word and definition of canon too far? canon is essentially officially endorsed or produced fiction, no? 

 

all the queries you raise; are space marines all male? does the emperor consume souls? etc etc are all contained and answered fairly consistently (with perhaps some variance for flavour) . so everything you know and value holds true.

 

the loose canon concept really just gives the audience an in-universe way to connect all the seemingly contradictory info in the officially published lore. that same concept allows each of us to accept or dismiss whatever we wish to in that lore.

 

things like the emperor secretly being horus don't fall under loose canon, they're a head canon sort of thing. if you can find stuff in the published lore to support that theory... great. that's creative as heck. just don't expect it to come out in a book any time soon.

[mc warhammer]

 

 Think of the Elder Scrolls universe (the universe - not the games) as Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Each game, book, art piece, playthrough, etc. are then different versions of this one central piece of fiction, just like there are many different editions of Shakespeare’s play. There are books, movies, theatre productions, audiobooks, a ballet… but they are all Romeo and Juliet. Some of the editions make only minor edits to the “real,” original work of fiction, others make sweeping alterations. C0DA, in this analogy, is something like West Side Story. Or, to use another play as the starting point, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It takes some of the themes of the world and shifts everything around them in order to examine them from another angle.

 

Michael’s C0DA is, in other words, not just his view on the world. C0DA isn’t a fancy word for headcanon, unless your headcanon is a work of fiction set in a different genre and a different setting than the original universe with the expressed purpose of reinterpreting the world rather than expanding it. C0DA isn’t a fancy word for fanfiction or apocrypha or anything else you want to call it - though your fanfiction could certainly be a c0da.

 

C0DA is speculative fiction about an already fictional universe.

 

I personally see a lot of this applying well to some of the better modelling/background blogs on B&C but not so much elsewhere.

 

Yea but truly I say unto you that TES fans dwell in blissful heightened contemplation, unbound from the relentless cycle of canon arguments. Compared to these philosopher-kings we 40k fans are as brutes crawling in darkness. We debate the locations of hive fleets while they are plumbing the depths of what-might-be, wielding Crowleian metaphysical heuristics as we would a nasty comeback to a poster we disagree with. They have broken free.

 

Ahem. It's a lot to work through and it's not for everyone but at its heart it shows that saying 'it's all made up' is not a dead end. Worth digging into a bit, if only because it removes a venue for sniping at each other.

 

 

i'm guessing eldar scrolls is a gaming thing? full disclaimer- i'm not a gamer, either online or tabletop.

 

is the C0DA built into the actual fiction? like a form of disclaimer at the top or is the knowledge that it's only one interpretation woven into that particular interpretation? 

 

or is it more of a thing where you only learn about C0DA by interacting with the community?

[Scribe]

 

So, I've got a batch job running, so I have some time.

 

Its not that I dont like the answer. Its my inability to grok the answer, with what I based on many clear cut examples accept as factual information.

 

The easy one is 'Space Marines begin life as Male'.

 

Now, we can argue out of game that that is a short sighted choice made as a sign of the times. All one need to do is look at how Sigmarines were handled on release, and then many months later, we have some females.

 

For the sake of argument, lets accept however that within the game lore, SM = Dudes.

 

Wargamer does not agree. Thats their choice, and based on the last few posts here thats a valid choice to make because the canon is loose.

 

You call in minutiae, I call it one piece of the tapestry, all of which form the basis of the setting within which the story is told.

 

So...I just cant move past this, not from a 'no I cannot be wrong' but from a

 

A != B

A == C

Therefore  C != B

 

Type situation.

 

Honestly, I would rather have an official 'yes you are wrong', because despite examples to the contrary, I would rather adjust my stance, than remain incorrect in my assumption of truth.

 

all the queries you raise; are space marines all male? does the emperor consume souls? etc etc are all contained and answered fairly consistently (with perhaps some variance for flavour) . so everything you know and value holds true.

 

the loose canon concept really just gives the audience an in-universe way to connect all the seemingly contradictory info in the officially published lore. that same concept allows each of us to accept or dismiss whatever we wish to in that lore.

 

 

Computer Batch (.bat). :]

 

This is where I am. To me, my questions have been answered. There is no grey area here really.

 

I dont object to the idea of loose canon, but there is part of that aka 'canon' which is locked in.

 

If I'm wrong, and there isnt, I just want that to be communicated clearly, because to me, there are correct, and incorrect answers. The Earth, again, is not Flat.

[Wargamer]

As I've said, there is most certainly a canon in 40k - it's the parts that have to be true for the setting to work.

 

This is why 40k is 40k whether Space Marines are warrior monks, bloodthirsty lunatics or space SAS - what matters is there are elite soldiers called Space Marines and they are superhuman.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

So, I've got a batch job running, so I have some time.

 

Its not that I dont like the answer. Its my inability to grok the answer, with what I based on many clear cut examples accept as factual information.

 

The easy one is 'Space Marines begin life as Male'.

 

Now, we can argue out of game that that is a short sighted choice made as a sign of the times. All one need to do is look at how Sigmarines were handled on release, and then many months later, we have some females.

 

For the sake of argument, lets accept however that within the game lore, SM = Dudes.

 

Wargamer does not agree. Thats their choice, and based on the last few posts here thats a valid choice to make because the canon is loose.

 

You call in minutiae, I call it one piece of the tapestry, all of which form the basis of the setting within which the story is told.

 

So...I just cant move past this, not from a 'no I cannot be wrong' but from a

 

A != B

A == C

Therefore  C != B

 

Type situation.

 

Honestly, I would rather have an official 'yes you are wrong', because despite examples to the contrary, I would rather adjust my stance, than remain incorrect in my assumption of truth.

 

all the queries you raise; are space marines all male? does the emperor consume souls? etc etc are all contained and answered fairly consistently (with perhaps some variance for flavour) . so everything you know and value holds true.

 

the loose canon concept really just gives the audience an in-universe way to connect all the seemingly contradictory info in the officially published lore. that same concept allows each of us to accept or dismiss whatever we wish to in that lore.

 

 

Computer Batch (.bat). :]

 

This is where I am. To me, my questions have been answered. There is no grey area here really.

 

I dont object to the idea of loose canon, but there is part of that aka 'canon' which is locked in.

 

If I'm wrong, and there isnt, I just want that to be communicated clearly, because to me, there are correct, and incorrect answers. The Earth, again, is not Flat.

 

 

 

yeah, i get that. it does seem to me that "fact" in 40k is discovered more through examples of overlapping evidence from multiple sources rather than a single defined word of "god". 

[Scribe]

As I've said, there is most certainly a canon in 40k - it's the parts that have to be true for the setting to work.

 

This is why 40k is 40k whether Space Marines are warrior monks, bloodthirsty lunatics or space SAS - what matters is there are elite soldiers called Space Marines and they are superhuman.

 

Its more than this though. Its the characteristics of the various factions, its the unnecessary yet true things like yes, Male Space Marines.

 

It IS the minor details, because those minor details add depth, colour, richness. 

 

So when someone says 'Yes those things are true, or none of it is, its both.'

 

I just cannot take part in that.

 

I mean we used to get dates on things, but they took that away, and I get why.

 

They have completely invalidated Dates and Time. I get why, and sure why not.

 

However to say that all Fan Fiction is ALSO valid, and part of the setting (The Elder Scrolls links, illuminating) thats a bridge too far to ME, personally.

[mc warhammer]

 

It doesn't excuse mistakes, and there's laziness in everything. But it's anything but unabashed laziness. It's a conscious choice to portray the scale and immunise the setting from One True Wayism. There can't be one definitive take on any one war or faction or army or character because of the way the IP functions. Which is a bloody good thing for a lot of us. I don't believe for a second you'd prefer the first way every army/faction/character was presented, and haven't ever preferred another designer/author/mini update's presentation over them. 

 

 

yeah, saying it was a mechanism to hand-wave mistakes was unfair. it's a cool approach in and of itself (though i wouldn't mind that approach being built into the lore a little more. something less on the nose than "dear reader beware" but in that general vicinity). but a handy side effect is that it can catch all those mistakes as well, not too different to the dr who timey wimey thing. the answers are all contained in the actual concept/setting.

[Wargamer]

The character of the various factions has changed over the years, in universe and out of it.

 

You argue that the minute details matter. Okay. Salamanders aren't really Salamanders unless they're actually trying to make the galaxy a better place, right? They can't be Salamanders without a fetish for fire, right?

 

Next question - do Salamanders need to be hideous freaks of nature, or can they just be Marines with Sub-Saharran skin tones?

 

Would Space Wolves be Space Wolves if we got rid of the Thunderwolf Cavalry and the Wolf-drawn chariots and the Wolf men raised by Wolves and armed with wolves and trained in wolf warfare?

 

Can Blood Angels be Blood Angels without everyone and everything being blood themed? Do Ultramarines need to have an ultraboner for the Codex? Does answering these questions help you understand why not everything about a given faction matter as much as you might think?

[Scribe]

The character of the various factions has changed over the years, in universe and out of it.

 

You argue that the minute details matter. Okay. Salamanders aren't really Salamanders unless they're actually trying to make the galaxy a better place, right? They can't be Salamanders without a fetish for fire, right?

 

Next question - do Salamanders need to be hideous freaks of nature, or can they just be Marines with Sub-Saharran skin tones?

 

Would Space Wolves be Space Wolves if we got rid of the Thunderwolf Cavalry and the Wolf-drawn chariots and the Wolf men raised by Wolves and armed with wolves and trained in wolf warfare?

 

Can Blood Angels be Blood Angels without everyone and everything being blood themed? Do Ultramarines need to have an ultraboner for the Codex? Does answering these questions help you understand why not everything about a given faction matter as much as you might think?

 

No, not in the least actually, because the vast majority of that doesnt speak to the character of those factions at all, and many are just recent additions or points of emphasis that have been decried by many for years.

 

Those things DO matter, because a number of your points are low points in the development of the lore and setting.

 

I mean without resorting to exaggeration.

 

Are Night Lords a faction built on Terror, with pale Skin?

Are Space Wolves a faction built on Norse/Viking Tropes?

Are Blood Angels not a faction of which one of their characterizations is an appreciation for art and craft?

[mc warhammer]

 

As I've said, there is most certainly a canon in 40k - it's the parts that have to be true for the setting to work.

 

This is why 40k is 40k whether Space Marines are warrior monks, bloodthirsty lunatics or space SAS - what matters is there are elite soldiers called Space Marines and they are superhuman.

 

Its more than this though. Its the characteristics of the various factions, its the unnecessary yet true things like yes, Male Space Marines.

 

It IS the minor details, because those minor details add depth, colour, richness. 

 

So when someone says 'Yes those things are true, or none of it is, its both.'

 

I just cannot take part in that.

 

I mean we used to get dates on things, but they took that away, and I get why.

 

They have completely invalidated Dates and Time. I get why, and sure why not.

 

However to say that all Fan Fiction is ALSO valid, and part of the setting (The Elder Scrolls links, illuminating) thats a bridge too far to ME, personally.

 

 

thing is, a classic/hard canon reading is perfectly valid and possible.

 

if you want to take the fiction as objective truth, with little to no head canon interference, you can. you can say recent lore supercedes older whenever they contradict. and i'm sure the universe would still hold up.

 

there's really no need to have the publisher or other readers further validate that approach.

[Scribe]

Valid/Possible, isnt sufficient to me, because if the canon is loose, I can view it hard, but that doesnt make it right.

 

You feeling me?

 

I mean as alluded to, I'm in Software. Code is right, or it is wrong. Thats literally as simple as I can view canon. A statement is right (aligns with canon) or it is wrong.

 

If there really, deep deep down, IS no canon, because its 'loose'. I want nothing to do with that type of setting.

 

The Dornian Heresy is not real.

 

I mean I dont know how to articulate it any better here. I believe in a canonical view of 40K as a setting. The Eldar caused the Eye to open. The Necrons sleep, and will awaken, and the bugs are coming.

 

The universe cannot be a shared experience, if canon is not real and we all just run around 'going with my gut'.

[mc warhammer]

Valid/Possible, isnt sufficient to me, because if the canon is loose, I can view it hard, but that doesnt make it right.

 

You feeling me?

 

I mean as alluded to, I'm in Software. Code is right, or it is wrong. Thats literally as simple as I can view canon. A statement is right (aligns with canon) or it is wrong.

 

If there really, deep deep down, IS no canon, because its 'loose'. I want nothing to do with that type of setting.

 

The Dornian Heresy is not real.

 

I mean I dont know how to articulate it any better here. I believe in a canonical view of 40K as a setting. The Eldar caused the Eye to open. The Necrons sleep, and will awaken, and the bugs are coming.

 

The universe cannot be a shared experience, if canon is not real and we all just run around 'going with my gut'.

 

yeah, but fiction and art aren't code. well, maybe you could make a case for it... but just because my dad was a welder didn't mean he couldn't appreciate the odd picasso or hirst (not that he ever did, mind you).

 

i don't see the conflict for you? there's no canon, loose or otherwise, that contradicts the eldar and necron stuff (to my knowledge). everything you hold dear is fully supported

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

[Scribe]

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

 

 

Thats....kind of exactly it. I want answers, that are correct. I dont want answers, which are wrong.

 

And look, I'm HAPPY TO BE WRONG, if I can actually be corrected. 

 

I mean in the end, I want truth. I want a cohesive, and logical setting. 

 

Do you remember the Fluff Bible?

Do you remember the combined history/timeline of 40K (I believe it was only on Portent, and was lost...) written by MvS, of Liber Chaotica fame?

 

These are the things I want. Things to reference, to know as true.

 

I mean honestly, if someone just wants to jump in here and say 'Yo Scribe, sorry man but thats all dead and gone now, doesnt exist its not real, recognized, or legit as far as GW is concerned' thats more than fine, hell I may even thank you for the release. :]

[mc warhammer]

 

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

 

 

Thats....kind of exactly it. I want answers, that are correct. I dont want answers, which are wrong.

 

And look, I'm HAPPY TO BE WRONG, if I can actually be corrected. 

 

I mean in the end, I want truth. I want a cohesive, and logical setting. 

 

Do you remember the Fluff Bible?

Do you remember the combined history/timeline of 40K (I believe it was only on Portent, and was lost...) written by MvS, of Liber Chaotica fame?

 

These are the things I want. Things to reference, to know as true.

 

I mean honestly, if someone just wants to jump in here and say 'Yo Scribe, sorry man but thats all dead and gone now, doesnt exist its not real, recognized, or legit as far as GW is concerned' thats more than fine, hell I may even thank you for the release. :]

 

 

 

cool brother, i suppose i can see the buzz in that.  not something that interests me, though. 

 

i will say, it seems a pity to give up something that you obviously enjoy so much on that basis. 

[Scribe]

 

 

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

 

 

Thats....kind of exactly it. I want answers, that are correct. I dont want answers, which are wrong.

 

And look, I'm HAPPY TO BE WRONG, if I can actually be corrected. 

 

I mean in the end, I want truth. I want a cohesive, and logical setting. 

 

Do you remember the Fluff Bible?

Do you remember the combined history/timeline of 40K (I believe it was only on Portent, and was lost...) written by MvS, of Liber Chaotica fame?

 

These are the things I want. Things to reference, to know as true.

 

I mean honestly, if someone just wants to jump in here and say 'Yo Scribe, sorry man but thats all dead and gone now, doesnt exist its not real, recognized, or legit as far as GW is concerned' thats more than fine, hell I may even thank you for the release. :]

 

 

 

cool brother, i suppose i can see the buzz in that.  not something that interests me, though. 

 

i will say, it seems a pity to give up something that you obviously enjoy so much on that basis. 

 

 

If settings dont make sense, I'm just not interested. I've got more than enough things I barely tolerate in 40K as is, since 6th really (how many years?) that I'm just holding on to the last thing I liked, the setting.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

 

 

Thats....kind of exactly it. I want answers, that are correct. I dont want answers, which are wrong.

 

And look, I'm HAPPY TO BE WRONG, if I can actually be corrected. 

 

I mean in the end, I want truth. I want a cohesive, and logical setting. 

 

Do you remember the Fluff Bible?

Do you remember the combined history/timeline of 40K (I believe it was only on Portent, and was lost...) written by MvS, of Liber Chaotica fame?

 

These are the things I want. Things to reference, to know as true.

 

I mean honestly, if someone just wants to jump in here and say 'Yo Scribe, sorry man but thats all dead and gone now, doesnt exist its not real, recognized, or legit as far as GW is concerned' thats more than fine, hell I may even thank you for the release. :]

 

 

 

cool brother, i suppose i can see the buzz in that.  not something that interests me, though. 

 

i will say, it seems a pity to give up something that you obviously enjoy so much on that basis. 

 

 

If settings dont make sense, I'm just not interested. I've got more than enough things I barely tolerate in 40K as is, since 6th really (how many years?) that I'm just holding on to the last thing I liked, the setting.

 

 

that's a tad unfair to others who continue to make sense of the setting as provided. it does makes sense, just not in a way you'd prefer to process it. 

 

but i totally get moving on when a franchise evolves in a way that you no longer enjoy. it happens to almost all of them as they update and try new things, and it doesn't make the franchise or its continuing fans wrong...it just means it's no longer for you (by you i mean "one". saying "one" makes me feel wonker)

[Scribe]

No thats totally fair, what makes sense for one person, may not for another. I mean Wargamer has made several rational posts, and seems to understand the setting just as well as I do if not better, yet thinks its fine to have female Marines.

 

Thats fine, thats their logic, and that makes sense to them. Sure.

 

I'm fine with people having head canon, loose canon, or whatever, like in my head canon, Rob's not back, and the whole Eldar God of the Dead being around completely subverting the Eldar Paths? Well thats so heinous a development I refuse to even think about it. Bringing back Thousand Sun's from Dust and completely removing the hook of Ahriman making him into a joke? lol nope!

 

Yet, those things happened, those things are canon. I cannot REALLY ignore them when confronted with a question of FACT. In my head canon though, cat lady is just a really nice model, and the other 2 of the 3 dont exist.

 

I'm fine with head canon, but I want an objective truth. Marines are Male, and the Earth is NOT Flat.

 

Does that make sense or am I just rambling...

[mc warhammer]

total sense. and i'd say you do have what you want, whether or not it's to your taste (returning primarchs etc)

 

and i totally agree, true head canon takes a certain mindset. i know one guy who can literally pick and choose words, characters, events in a work he likes...as he reads and watches in real time. it's like he edits the thing as he absorbs it

 

he may as well give himself a crew credit on imdb for each film he watches

 

generally when i need to head canon events i don't like, i also need to jump ship. i'll often do it at a fav character's death, as it rounds things off nicely for me. any future retcons or continuity doesn't need to exist for me. so similar to you, there's only so much i can ignore

[Conn Eremon]

This thread is really starting to spiral into repeating itself here, on an off-topic route nonetheless. Hopefully I can put this to rest for you Scribe. It honestly reads to me like you, and others, are not arguing entirely against 'loose canon,' but something else as well. It does not mean that everybody's headcanon is true for everybody else, nor does it mean that you can never hold onto any one thing as being true. I'm sure there's someone out there who likes the Dornian Heresy enough to make it their preferred version of the setting, but that has zero bearing on anyone other than that fan. Having a setting be open to fan modification does not affect the setting itself from the perspective of other fans. Headcanon is not a symptom of loose canon, and is connected only in that loose canon tends to lead to less headcanon. It's those settings with Word of God that tend to have fandoms that are more inclined toward headcanon, the Star Wars setting and fandom being the largest example I know.

 

Loose canon means that preponderance of data takes the place of Word of God, with the understanding that context holds equal relevance and an unseen, underlying truth may contradict or modify it. If you need there to be a Word of God, a single right answer, then I don't believe 40k ever will provide that, as it never has. It had a preponderance of data confirming the same answers, providing enough varying contexts and perspectives to further cement them from possible to likely to certainty, while leaving other aspects vague or in the dark as to be unclear. By default, nothing fan-made can affect that preponderance of data anymore than it can a setting with Word of God. This is a means to an end; laziness would imply this is easier than the alternative. It lends the setting the tone and character that would otherwise only be stated to be the case without having any impact, as well as leaving the setting open to author interpretations that can add flavor to the setting. It's 'show, don't tell' applied to the setting itself.

 

Would Dan Abnett be anywhere near as popular if his 40k work was provided in a setting with Word of God? Would there be anywhere near as large of a DIY presence? Didn't the disappearance of dates give an impact to the reveal that those within the setting who track the Imperial calendar are unable to agree, itself a verification of what already had a preponderance of data?

 

It certainly doesn't mean you have to like it, it's a design choice that is certainly up to you to determine if it's to your tastes or not. Lord knows, there have always been heated discussions on how certain writer interpretations are received by the community. Loose canon is not the right way to do it, it's just a way that was chosen and stuck with. But it is also not a change, and it seems to me that it has not previously affected you negatively. If it's a deal breaker, that's your choice. To be clear, I'm not trying to say that if you don't like it, then leave. I'm just saying that is your choice to do so, if that's really what you feel you want to do.

 

I also don't mean ask for the line of discussion to end after saying my piece so as not to risk rebuttal, but it has gone on long enough since WarriorFish brought to attention how off-topic it was. Feel free to message me if you'd like to.

 

 

Otherwise, let's end the discussion on 'loose canon' here and get back to the topic on how integral the concept of 'grim dark' is to the setting and fandom interest.

[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.

 

 

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.

(Sorry for the late response)

 

A few points...

 

1. Are Norse religious stories, e.g. Ragnarok, entertaining because of or despite outcome certainty? Debatable...but I note that final outcomes are typically a feature of religious beliefs, not fiction written purely for entertainment. Generally, good fiction prefers to show, not tell.

 

2. I also understand that Ragnarok (or the Apocalypse) is an in-universe certainty. It involves literal gods and the nature of a magical Norse universe...so in-universe certainty is easier to accept. Such is the nature of the Norse universe. I should add that Ragnarok is not truly "the final doom" in Norse belief...it also marks a new beginning. Ragnarok is cyclical.

 

On the other hand...

The guaranteed and imminent doom of the Imperium is not an organic outgrowth of some universal principle in the 40K universe. It's based on the statement of an omniscient narrator. It feels forced by GW in my opinion. What's the in-universe explanation? Is it simply written upon the skeins of fate? Does this sort of concept fit 40K? I say not.

 

3. Another key distinction here is the timing of Ragnarok (or the Apocalypse). It's all rather vague.

 

As I've said before, the guarantee of eventual collapse is nigh-meaningless and I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

 

The idea is that the Imperium is guaranteed to collapse very soon , i.e. a minute from midnight.

 

Again, if circumstances are dire, I'd prefer to have them speak for themselves

[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.

(Sorry for the late response)

 

A few points...

 

1. Are Norse religious stories, e.g. Ragnarok, entertaining because of or despite outcome certainty? Debatable...but I note that final outcomes are typically a feature of religious beliefs, not fiction written purely for entertainment. Generally, good fiction prefers to show, not tell.

 

2. I also understand that Ragnarok (or the Apocalypse) is an in-universe certainty. It involves literal gods and the nature of a magical Norse universe...so in-universe certainty is easier to accept. Such is the nature of the Norse universe. I should add that Ragnarok is not truly "the final doom" in Norse belief...it also marks a new beginning. Ragnarok is cyclical.

 

On the other hand...

The guaranteed and imminent doom of the Imperium is not an organic outgrowth of some universal principle in the 40K universe. It's based on the statement of an omniscient narrator. It feels forced by GW in my opinion. What's the in-universe explanation? Is it simply written upon the skeins of fate? Does this sort of concept fit 40K? I say not.

 

3. Another key distinction here is the timing of Ragnarok (or the Apocalypse). It's all rather vague.

 

As I've said before, the guarantee of eventual collapse is nigh-meaningless and I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

 

The idea is that the Imperium is guaranteed to collapse very soon , i.e. a minute from midnight.

 

Again, if circumstances are dire, I'd prefer to have them speak for themselves

 

 

 

all good mate, if i wasn't chained to a desk at work ,i wouldn't reply quite so regulalry

 

1.how do we explain well known myths (not religious), where the audience go in already knowing the ending?

 

or any story based on a historial or true event where the conclusion is public knowledge (unless you count the twist with hitler in inglorious basterds)

 

or non linear story telling that give the ending away at the beginning? american beauty, reservoir dogs, the prestige.

 

irreversible is a famous example.

 

40k doesn't really break  the "show don't tell" rule. it's not like each book has huge amounts (or any) exposition devoted to telling us about how humankind is on the brink 

 

2. how do you see chaos enveloping the universe as not being an in-universe god driven event? you can argue that it is the beginning of a new phase of existence for humanity too if you like, but ragnarok's cyclical nature doesn't lessen its inevitability or that of any other apocalyptic myth. i don't follow your distinction 

 

3. i'm not sure i follow you here either. say, the movie thor ragnarok- was literally set during ragnarok. mcarthy's the road is during the end of humanity... cos that's the setting. it's not that different to setting dunkirk at dunkirk specifically in 1940 rather than 2016. the authors have picked them for their particular flavour. and its a fairly distinct one.

[A D-B]

I don't think it's that I don't like it, I feel I'm just flailing about in my misunderstanding and ignorance of what you are saying.

 

Maybe? Or maybe it's me making no sense through a combination of phone-typing and poor elaboration from being too lazy to dig out earlier, more detailed statements. I've read a lot of your 5K posts over the years. You've never struck me as a flailer.

 

Anyway, posts like these are what I swore I'd stop arguing about on forums (Because time! Because deadlines!) so I'mma go be a good boy.

 

"Be excellent to each other."

[mc warhammer]

 

 

I don't think it's that I don't like it, I feel I'm just flailing about in my misunderstanding and ignorance of what you are saying.

Maybe? Or maybe it's me making no sense through a combination of phone-typing and poor elaboration from being too lazy to dig out earlier, more detailed statements. I've read a lot of your 5K posts over the years. You've never struck me as a flailer.

 

Anyway, posts like these are what I swore I'd stop arguing about on forums (Because time! Because deadlines!) so I'mma go be a good boy.

 

"Be excellent to each other."

join us adb

 

we all float down here...

[Ascanius]

If you spend enough time exposed to something, you get a feel for it. You learn its shapes and textures. But you can change a lot of the dressing and it still fits the hole. That's why the Orville is Star Trek, but Star Trek Discovery is not.

 

But that's not true. The Orville isn't Star Trek, and Discovery is.

 

See how that works?

 

There's no point having these sorts of arguments. It's much more useful to be clear with our statements and in our discussions with each other that we're talking about our preferences, not objective truth.

 

I prefer the kind of 40K setting that's described in Wrath of Iron and Pariah and Dante to the one often I see people enthusing about around here, where the lines are clearly drawn between good and evil. In my 40K, the lines are clearly drawn between Imperium and Chaos, human and xenos, et cetera, but good and evil don't even register as factors anywhere near those lines. Everything is so far past the line they can't even see good from where they're standing.

 

It goes back to Moorcock and a universe driven by a split between not good and evil, but order and chaos.

[Ascanius]

As for maps, I'd offer this.

 

You see representations of the tendrils of Hive Fleet Leviathan on the galactic map. Those tendrils are drawn in a certain way, with a certain width shown, and widen the further they get from known space, connecting to imply an enormous mass from which they all ultimately spring.

 

OK. But are those tendrils actually as thick as drawn on the map? Because that would mean that, at the point where they enter the galactic plane, you're talking about a spread of Tyranid organisms floating through space that's wide enough to encompass . . . Well. There are at least 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

 

Look at this map. Any one of the smallest tendrils shown coming up in the Veiled Region would be wide enough to encompass tens of thousands of star systems. The thickest would encompass millions.

 

But that's not what is happening, is it? They're not literally occupying that volume of space at any one time. It's a representation of their general path, of the space through which they're advancing, not in a solid mass but in a very loose, general sense.

 

So, drawing too much in the way of conclusions as to how many are coming seems silly.

 

Additional factors:

 

a) every textual estimate of Tyranid numbers is all about how everyone estimates that what's shown up is only a scouting force, a fraction of the total - but those are estimates by Imperial scholars who, as we know, don't know a god from a corpse. Even the maps are presented as Imperial maps with representations of what they think is happening.

 

b) treating the Tyranids as an impending threat is also a bit silly, considering that there's no evidence of how far behind the current forces the "main strength" might be. If you want to be rigid about canon, it took the Tyranids nearly 10,000 years just to get their scout forces here. It could be 20,000 years before the "real" fleets show up.

 

All of which is to say, declarations about how the Tyranids are coming and the Imperium is doomed basically as of tomorrow isn't supported as concretely as people think. Nor is Chaos necessarily poised on the brink of taking over. Nor are the Necron tomb worlds guaranteed to wake up en masse next Thursday.

 

Which is all part of loose canon. Nothing is very seriously fixed. That's as much for GW's benefit, so they can do what they want to do without having to explicitly retcon or change it, as it is for ours.