Black Library Advent Calendar 2017

[mc warhammer]

 

 

The issue is the 'its not true' part. Is the Emperor on the throne and not a shard of Magnus? We dont know because Master of Mankind wasn't actually real, it was lie by Alum Karpin. 

 

 

from what darkchap and m0nolith have detailed it seems more like an ambiguous puzzle piece than pamela ewing's dream series on dallas

 

from that understanding, it's not dismissive of the audience rather it invites active participation

 

 

 Unreliable narrators and in-universe texts certainly have a place to enhance certain mysteries, but I prefer for these not to form the bulk of the body of work. Frankly, I'm not sure what the value of making the entire HH series or BL portfolio in-universe/unreliable is. The only obvious function is to grant authours more room to offer contradicting takes.

 

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald  etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

 

but then, i think big fish is one of burton's best films, so i'm probably biased.

 

i also reignited my 40k interest with the index astartes articles, which were built around ambiguity, lies, half truths and contradiction so that probably set my expectations. it was part of what made them engaging.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

 

The issue is the 'its not true' part. Is the Emperor on the throne and not a shard of Magnus? We dont know because Master of Mankind wasn't actually real, it was lie by Alum Karpin.

 

from what darkchap and m0nolith have detailed it seems more like an ambiguous puzzle piece than pamela ewing's dream series on dallas

 

from that understanding, it's not dismissive of the audience rather it invites active participation

 

Unreliable narrators and in-universe texts certainly have a place to enhance certain mysteries, but I prefer for these not to form the bulk of the body of work. Frankly, I'm not sure what the value of making the entire HH series or BL portfolio in-universe/unreliable is. The only obvious function is to grant authours more room to offer contradicting takes.

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

 

but then, i think big fish is one of burton's best films, so i'm probably biased.

 

i also reignited my 40k interest with the index astartes articles, which were built around ambiguity, lies, half truths and contradiction so that probably set my expectations. it was part of what made them engaging.

This still isn’t the point. The point is the twitter trash talk about about the community makes any defense of the unreliable narrator worthless. Imagine applying this standard to any other part of you life. If you knew your significant other made rude comments about you publicly, you’d be less inclined to trust that they are being sincere privately. Same for your boss or your friends. We know the BL authors actively dislike portions of the community, that they write stories to clear up fan meme perceptions, and they don’t understand that we have no way of learning all the contextual information they have access to.

[bluntblade]

Heck, the new Star Wars invokes the unreliable narrator.

 

However, I feel that to tar all the authors with the same brush is unfair. AD-B did actively muddy the waters with MoM after all.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

 

The issue is the 'its not true' part. Is the Emperor on the throne and not a shard of Magnus? We dont know because Master of Mankind wasn't actually real, it was lie by Alum Karpin.

from what darkchap and m0nolith have detailed it seems more like an ambiguous puzzle piece than pamela ewing's dream series on dallas

 

from that understanding, it's not dismissive of the audience rather it invites active participation

 

Unreliable narrators and in-universe texts certainly have a place to enhance certain mysteries, but I prefer for these not to form the bulk of the body of work. Frankly, I'm not sure what the value of making the entire HH series or BL portfolio in-universe/unreliable is. The only obvious function is to grant authours more room to offer contradicting takes.

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

 

but then, i think big fish is one of burton's best films, so i'm probably biased.

 

i also reignited my 40k interest with the index astartes articles, which were built around ambiguity, lies, half truths and contradiction so that probably set my expectations. it was part of what made them engaging.

This still isn’t the point. The point is the twitter trash talk about about the community makes any defense of the unreliable narrator worthless. Imagine applying this standard to any other part of you life. If you knew your significant other made rude comments about you publicly, you’d be less inclined to trust that they are being sincere privately. Same for your boss or your friends. We know the BL authors actively dislike portions of the community, that they write stories to clear up fan meme perceptions, and they don’t understand that we have no way of learning all the contextual information they have access to.

 

 

that analogy doesn't hold up; my s.o isn't writing a book about me. the only thing that it might prove is that laurie would most likely say the same things to fan irl as he would to one online. but i don't know the man, and haven't dated him, so i can't say.

 

here's one: i troll the living hell out of alt right groups for kicks online. none of that (to my conscious knowledge) has made its way into my film or television work. i mean... why would it?

 

your point, that i thought i was replying to, seemed to be talking about the narrative on its own merits (confusingly, it mentioned alum karpin and the emperor, not the author). if this is about a focus on feeling trolled, i've already made it pretty clear why i won't entertain that notion elsewhere in this thread. if spite was what motivated this particular story, it would show in the work itself. somehow, people are enjoying it. that's a decent clue that enjoyment was the goal, not spite.

 

i see this stuff repeatedly on fan forums, whether it's superheroes or star wars or my little ponies. it's conjecture. fans seem to love it, but it ain't for me.

[b1soul]

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald  etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

And they write for Black Library?

[mc warhammer]

 

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald  etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

And they write for Black Library?

 

 

i'm gonna take a wiiiiiild guess here and say that you know the answer to that question

[b1soul]

 

 

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald  etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

 

And they write for Black Library?

 

i'm gonna take a wiiiiiild guess here and say that you know the answer to that question

Good...as you do too.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

i'd say yan martel, akira kurosawa, agatha christie, emily bronte, chuck palahniuk, stanley kubrick, f scott fitzgerald  etc could all come up with great reasons other than convenience for why that particular narrative voice is central to so many great works.

And they write for Black Library?

 

i'm gonna take a wiiiiiild guess here and say that you know the answer to that question

Good...as you do too.

 

 

yay! we are on the same page.

 

but maybe there are some answers you could fill me in on:

 

are we only supposed to judge the merits of "unreliable narrator" as a device within the confines of BL and only BL, or are we allowed to...y'know...compare and contrast with other fiction that employs similar techniques?

 

were the posts i've read in the past where people make comparisons to star trek or star wars...orrrrrr saaaayyyyy....dune... out of order?

[helterskelter]

We forget that it's only Canon when GW wills it. 'Member when legion numbers were retconned in later editions. Those that own the old novels 'member.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

Meh. That is precisely how I feel about the Malcador story.

 

Really, it's stuff like this that kills my hope that the ending to the Heresy storyline will be in any way satisfying.

The last book of the Heresy will end with ‘and then John Grammaticus woke up, and knew it was all a dream.’

Spoilers: The Emperor is wounded unto death, installed on the throne he intended for Magnus to be bound to, and suffers for Eternity.

 

I mean the broad strokes have been with us forever, what do people expect?

 

'no guys really there is still hope, don't plug me in!'

 

Much like MoM I don't see the issue.

 

 

I expect a well told story. And what I get poorly done faffing about with what is true or not, because Black Library seems to prefer twists to well told story.

 

Malcador story...

 

Is basically a half hour of time wasted, because it tells the story, then goes into 'It might be all lies!' twist that basically causes anything told in the story to be meaningless.

 

It's even worse if we take it at face value.

[Marshal Rohr]

That was my big issue as well. You get this story that literally punches you in the gut, tears down your perceptions of your favorite hobby universe, and offers new insight into the time period in which ‘your dudes’ exist. To be clear, even though I knew it was coming, I still enjoyed it a lot.

 

And then at the end you get a ‘just kidding, nerd’.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Marshal Rohr

[MrDarth151]

That was my big issue as well. You get this story that literally punches you in the gut, tears down your perceptions of your favorite hobby universe, and offers new insight into the time period in which ‘your dudes’ exist. To be clear, even though I knew it was coming, I still enjoyed it a lot.

 

And then at the end you get a ‘just kidding, nerd’.

 

Honestly? Considering this is Laurie Goulding, I would not be surprised in the slightest if that was the point. Him doing a story to disprove a popular fan theory

in this case, Horus Heresy being planned by the Emperor all along

is something that would be totally expected considering what I've heard him say in the past.

 

And to be honest.

 

I just find the new 'Primarchs and Legions are just tools to the Emperor!' line of storytelling to be unsatisfactory, and frankly making very little sense. It has very strong 'Emperor is just really stupid evil' vibes, which, while admittedly Grimdark, takes away from one of the strongest themes of the Heresy, in that it is supposed to be a tragedy. I dislike harming a central narrative theme because somebody decided that the story of one of the most destructive conflicts in the history of galaxy wasn't grim enough.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think the biggest hurdle is the way people treat the loyalists. The emperor’s characteristics were never sacrosanct to me. But everyone treating the loyal Primarchs and legions drowning in their own blood to save the Imperium need to be shown more respect. Reminds me of the mob banishing Coriolanus.

[Scribe]

Heck, the new Star Wars invokes the unreliable narrator.

 

However, I feel that to tar all the authors with the same brush is unfair. AD-B did actively muddy the waters with MoM after all.

ADB didn't muddy anything though?

[MrDarth151]

I think the biggest hurdle is the way people treat the loyalists. The emperor’s characteristics were never sacrosanct to me. But everyone treating the loyal Primarchs and legions drowning in their own blood to save the Imperium need to be shown more respect. Reminds me of the mob banishing Coriolanus.

 

For the record then: I do not argue his characteristics are sacrosanct, I argue that I get what BL has tried to achieve with him, and I think it was a failure.

 

From what I can tell from talking to ADB and Laurie Goulding, the intention was to not commit to any set interpretation of the Emperor, and leave him open to speculation. 

 

The problem is that they've decided to do it by constantly playing up the uncaring bastard card on his behalf, while providing token 'it might not be true though' line every now and again, to the point I don't think they can actually do any alternative to that interpretation at this point without it coming out as abject lies on the part of the Emperor himself.

 

Which is pretty bad when you have set out to explicitly not commit to any interpretation of the character.

 

Plus, it makes loyalists look like idiots who constantly preach about how they are loyal to the Emperor and his vision, when for all intents and purposes that vision is mostly based on the fact that they are blind to Him acting stupid/evil half the time, and their place in it is to be his tools, or die. If anything, it serves to vindicate traitors more.

Edited December 16, 2017 by MrDarth151

[Marshal Rohr]

That’s very true. As it stands now, the traitors were no more wrong to rebel than any other group in history. They will definitely need to offer up some solid resolution for the loyalist players to not feel like they got shafted by picking loyalists.

[Scribe]

As a near life long Chaos player...it was always justified.

 

That is what the older fluff always supported.

 

I mean that is why authors like ADB appeal to many of us, he takes the same concepts and discussion points that we have been hashing out for decades and provides context around those events.

[mc warhammer]

As a near life long Chaos player...it was always justified.

 

That is what the older fluff always supported.

 

I mean that is why authors like ADB appeal to many of us, he takes the same concepts and discussion points that we have been hashing out for decades and provides context around those events.

 

 

i always got that impression too...that there were always justifications for their rebellion and that's part of the tragedy.  none of it was black and white. if anything, horus' heel turn in false gods undermined that aspect.

[Marshal Rohr]

Treason is never the right answer

[Dagoth Ur]

Treason is never the right answer

 

Mighty words for a man of the New World

[mc warhammer]

Treason is never the right answer

 

probably not from imperialist point of view.

 

but any revolutionary, freedom fighter, secessionist or oppressed group will have their own reasons. and like most things, if we aren't rigid in our thinking, some of those reasons will be relatable.

[MrDarth151]

 

As a near life long Chaos player...it was always justified.

 

That is what the older fluff always supported.

 

I mean that is why authors like ADB appeal to many of us, he takes the same concepts and discussion points that we have been hashing out for decades and provides context around those events.

 

 

i always got that impression too...that there were always justifications for their rebellion and that's part of the tragedy.  none of it was black and white. if anything, horus' heel turn in false gods undermined that aspect.

 

 

And I'm going to say that providing more justification to traitors is not worth sacrificing the idea that the original incarnation of Imperium was something worth preserving and that the loyalist have been right to stand in its defence.

 

The destruction of the original Imperium was supposed to be tragic. It was not supposed to be competition to make it so bad, miserable and poorly thought out that the follow up seems like a bloody improvement.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

 

As a near life long Chaos player...it was always justified.

 

That is what the older fluff always supported.

 

I mean that is why authors like ADB appeal to many of us, he takes the same concepts and discussion points that we have been hashing out for decades and provides context around those events.

 

i always got that impression too...that there were always justifications for their rebellion and that's part of the tragedy. none of it was black and white. if anything, horus' heel turn in false gods undermined that aspect.

And I'm going to say that providing more justification to traitors is not worth sacrificing the idea that the original incarnation of Imperium was something worth preserving and that the loyalist have been right to stand in its defence.

 

The destruction of the original Imperium was supposed to be tragic. It was not supposed to be competition to make it so bad, miserable and poorly thought out that the follow up seems like a bloody improvement.

sure, i get that

 

but does one short story undermine that whole premise? or does it just add more flavour for those who want it?

[MrDarth151]

 

 

 

As a near life long Chaos player...it was always justified.

 

That is what the older fluff always supported.

 

I mean that is why authors like ADB appeal to many of us, he takes the same concepts and discussion points that we have been hashing out for decades and provides context around those events.

 

i always got that impression too...that there were always justifications for their rebellion and that's part of the tragedy. none of it was black and white. if anything, horus' heel turn in false gods undermined that aspect.

And I'm going to say that providing more justification to traitors is not worth sacrificing the idea that the original incarnation of Imperium was something worth preserving and that the loyalist have been right to stand in its defence.

 

The destruction of the original Imperium was supposed to be tragic. It was not supposed to be competition to make it so bad, miserable and poorly thought out that the follow up seems like a bloody improvement.

sure, i get that

 

but does one short story undermine that whole premise? or does it just add more flavour for those who want it?

 

 

The problem is that it isn't just a one short story. This is a continuation of a trend that has appeared in multiple BL stories, both novels and shorts. And there is nothing that really contradicts it.

 

It got to the point where I genuinely cannot think of the last story that made me think "Yeah, there is something worth fighting for here!".

 

At this rate, the only reaction BL will get to the Emperor being enthroned will be "Good riddance, you are more useful as silent battery, you arsehole.". Yes, what a tragic end to a great figure. I might shed a tear. Pah.

[Scribe]

Treason is never the right answer

This, in both ours and the 40K world is entirely up to one's point of view. :)

 

Paraphrasing our Lord Angron, only freedom is worth fighting for.