Warhammer Horror

[Volt]

 

The whole point of the Warhammer Horror Books will not be, how far can author describes the brutality of war, and the actions that must be done to ensure mankind survival in the 41st millenium, but how much horrors (and realities) is the reader mind capable to accept.

So a sort of ‘read until you vomit’ competition? No thanks....

 

What the hell is the point of limiting your consumption of fiction, and media in general, that purely makes you feel good? That's an emotional bubble, and is denying you the full expression of humanity. Negative emotions are as important as positive ones, or else movies that win Oscars wouldn't frequently be depressing tear jerkers that make you feel like your heart just got ripped out. Art exists to express all emotions, and that includes the bad. That which limits exclusively to being upbeat or at least upbeat in the sense of a "dudebro" action movie is merely limiting the scope of emotion experienced to a crude sliver of the full spectrum.

 

 

If any of us needed proof that "horror" is alive and present in current BL books (pretty sure none of us do need it but couldn't help but post this quote)...

 

Just reading Master of Mankind by ADB (I only buy HH in MMPB so a fair bit behind)...

 

"Her last thought, as [redacted] stepped closer, was that she would still be alive when he started eating her. Fortunately, she was wrong."

Frankly, how is this horror? A fearsome monster killing somebody before eating them is as basal and crude as you can get with horror. That's not really an example of "horror" living in the BL. Maybe it would be horrifying if it wasn't in warhammer, the universe of fearsome monsters killing people before they eat you, and you hoping it stays in that order. But it is warhammer and things like this are banal at this point. Rather if I were to put an example of horror in 40k, I'd quote Flayed.

 

 

 

'Sergeant Vilda,' Quintus warned, glancing up the road. 'Another wave of necrons is approaching…'

But Vilda didn't acknowledge his battle-brother. 'The Megir has ordered we select the best specimens from your settlement, those strong and healthy enough to bear future generations who might join the ranks of the Death Spectres.'

 

Prime stock. Vilda's early comment replayed in her mind, filling her with a deeper horror than the Flayers had ever induced.

 

'Suitable colonies are few and far between this far from the heart of the Imperium. An Exterminatus order has been issued and you will be taken to a suitable breeding world near Occludus. A glorious future awaits, girl. You will serve your Emperor well.'

 

Not only is this passage far darker in content and more revolting, it's fridge horror that becomes most disturbing the more you mentally chew on it. How many other Chapters practice this? How many worlds operated by a single Chapter can be like this? Does anybody even raise an eyebrow over this, or is this merely a case of institutionalized suffering and inhumanity by the Imperium accepted as normalcy? Not only does it expand the universe in just a couple sentences, it also provides a horrifying revelation about the Death Spectres and any Chapters like them.

 

(Also it provides an interesting contrast. Most of the short story is Flayers doing terribly painful [lethal] things to people, but the most horrifying and inhuman part of the story isn't the Necrons, it's the callous disregard of other humans by the Brothers of the Chapter who see a human merely as breeding stock.)

[bluntblade]

Pp's point didn't read to me like he only wanted to feel good. He was saying more that he didn't want to gorefest lit.

 

So basically wanting Alien rather than AVP2. Which we may just all be able to agree on here.

[Volt]

Pp's point didn't read to me like he only wanted to feel good. He was saying more that he didn't want to gorefest lit.

 

So basically wanting Alien rather than AVP2. Which we may just all be able to agree on here.

Oh I can agree. When I talk about for example my scenario of a father watching his kids get turned into protein gruel by an Iron Warrior and him hapless as a weak and defenseless slave, I don't mean describing that act in detail. I want the detail to focus on the emotions of the father and his reaction. To put in the context of a film, how the camera sweeps away from the actual butchery in favor of the human reaction of the unfortunate witness. Because ultimately due to our own nature, violence loses its impact on us. Swiftly too. It's the emotional agony of characters and building sympathy with them that avoids this attrition of the audience's interest in the character. 

 

Such "goreporn" material after all not only just loses its impact after a while, but becomes comedic. It's why I personally prefer works like Silence of the Lambs to any slasher fic or bolter porn. Violence is a powerful tool of the author, but it loses its potency swiftly. Thus it must be applied sparingly, and with extreme impact. IMO the "western" style or the eastern Kurosawa variant is a good source of inspiration, with violence being built up to until it explodes in a very short but brutal point in the story - both in terms of the violence itself but also the impact on the story in terms of character deaths, injuries, consequences, etc. 

[MrDarth151]

 

If any of us needed proof that "horror" is alive and present in current BL books (pretty sure none of us do need it but couldn't help but post this quote)...

 

Just reading Master of Mankind by ADB (I only buy HH in MMPB so a fair bit behind)...

 

"Her last thought, as [redacted] stepped closer, was that she would still be alive when he started eating her. Fortunately, she was wrong."

Frankly, how is this horror? A fearsome monster killing somebody before eating them is as basal and crude as you can get with horror. That's not really an example of "horror" living in the BL. Maybe it would be horrifying if it wasn't in warhammer, the universe of fearsome monsters killing people before they eat you, and you hoping it stays in that order. But it is warhammer and things like this are banal at this point. Rather if I were to put an example of horror in 40k, I'd quote Flayed.

 

 

 

'Sergeant Vilda,' Quintus warned, glancing up the road. 'Another wave of necrons is approaching…'

But Vilda didn't acknowledge his battle-brother. 'The Megir has ordered we select the best specimens from your settlement, those strong and healthy enough to bear future generations who might join the ranks of the Death Spectres.'

 

Prime stock. Vilda's early comment replayed in her mind, filling her with a deeper horror than the Flayers had ever induced.

 

'Suitable colonies are few and far between this far from the heart of the Imperium. An Exterminatus order has been issued and you will be taken to a suitable breeding world near Occludus. A glorious future awaits, girl. You will serve your Emperor well.'

 

Not only is this passage far darker in content and more revolting, it's fridge horror that becomes most disturbing the more you mentally chew on it. How many other Chapters practice this? How many worlds operated by a single Chapter can be like this? Does anybody even raise an eyebrow over this, or is this merely a case of institutionalized suffering and inhumanity by the Imperium accepted as normalcy? Not only does it expand the universe in just a couple sentences, it also provides a horrifying revelation about the Death Spectres and any Chapters like them.

 

(Also it provides an interesting contrast. Most of the short story is Flayers doing terribly painful [lethal] things to people, but the most horrifying and inhuman part of the story isn't the Necrons, it's the callous disregard of other humans by the Brothers of the Chapter who see a human merely as breeding stock.)

 

 

And see, this is precisely the reason I am entirely not looking forward to this line.

 

It's going to be an excuse for writers to indulge in the worst aspects of the Grimdarkness: pointless evil to the point of stupidity, which only makes me question how the Imperium survived for the last ten thousand of years, because it is filled with cretins.

 

It boils down to a single point: Grimdarkness, for me, has a feeling of scary, oppressive horror, when I see people acting to the best of their abilities and that's not enough. And that's something that BL doesn't do any more. Over the years, more and more, the Grimdarkness became this: Every person in the Imperium, bar select few, is a moron who is too brain dead to tie their own shoe laces, and said morons indulge in pointless evil acts, that are also counter-productive on the scale of the Imperium.

 

And it relies on people not doing research into things like military tactics and strategies, functioning of large scale polities or morality, for that matter. Research I did.

 

Ironically, because I wanted to write for BL.

 

"But Darth, Imperium of Mankind is not good guys, why do you want to portray them as such?" I hear you ask.

 

Because, contrary to majority of the human population, I am, at my core, utilitarian. That philosophy can be used to justify acts that would disgust you, that would horrify you, and that you would, on the level of moral intuition, call evil ten times out of ten. So when I say something is evil, it means that I consider it unjustifiable under that philosophy. 1984 doesn't become less horrifying because it is justified. It arguably becomes more so.

 

But nope. Screw moral complexity, that relies on various acts being seen as justified or not justified under different moral paradigms and thus facilitate a variety of interesting interpretations, no, that would be too nice for me. What we need is moral ambiguity, achieved in the usual manner: Let's have every side of conflict act in pointlessly evil way, so that we can shift the discussion to the scoring board of who is the most evil polity around.

 

Chaos wins, by the way. Barely, because BL is doing their best to pile more pointless and stupid atrocities an Imperium's feet.

 

It's not horror. It's a caricature.

 

And that's the end of this rant.

[Xisor]

One of the aspects I've been struggling with the last few months is this:

 

Getting the 'natural variations' right. Not all aristocrats will be incompetent, but a system of entrenched oligarchy is likely to be less efficient than a more egalitarian one.

 

Conveying the idea that some of the foolishness & incompetence (moronic, like retarded, is a fairly dodgy word that I strive to eschew) is only on *some* relevant axes of competence.

 

E.g. a plumber versus an IT programmer- who is the better carpenter? Mountain climber?

 

It's situational, to put it mildly.

 

But, juxtapose that with taking, at face value, the idea that your characters are indeed entirely competent for the situation as it could be foreseen: evolving that situation beyond them is an interesting challenge. A puzzle, basically. Not with one right answer, but the constraints are such that there could be many wrong answers, and many more that are difficult to determine. (The typical pyrrhic victory.)

 

In some respects, this is a fairly obvious take on things, but as I've considered more and more "what makes a horror story", I've found myself having to rearrange (or at least recalibrate and polish) my existing notions about stories and story-telling.

[Knockagh]

Yes Aliens is a great film. AVP2 I didn’t watch as I heard such poor reports about it. I’ve no interest in the grotesque or delving into the the depths of cruelty. I like my sci fi slightly comic book. I don’t want it horrific and made to feel real. I love to see chinks of light and goodness to contrast with the dark. That’s why I love gaunts Ghosts so much. There is so much goodness amoung the troops even when they are smothered in danger. I love Eisenhorn and Ravenor they keep fighting for good even though by the end they hardly know what good is.

Most space marine chapters have a love of nobility at their heart. Even though it might be a savage rather xenophobic nobility it’s still a longing for goodness.

Faith and purity of purpose is best portrayed when it’s contrasted with darkness. The darkness unusually confuses and dirties the purity and I love the story of humanities struggle against that evil.

Horror removes hope. And a universe fictional or real without hope isn’t one I have any great longing to read about or experience.

I’ve been reading the crimson king this week and the parts that deal with the sisters of silences prison are particularly dark. The captives have had all hope removed I found that scene nearly too dark. But the overall book is brilliant, it still a story of a primarch struggling to keep his honour and goodness, we know he fails but it breaks his heart.

[bluntblade]

I'd like to stress I meant Alien, that being more steeped in horror than the action-horror hybrid that is Aliens

[Fedor]

 

 

If any of us needed proof that "horror" is alive and present in current BL books (pretty sure none of us do need it but couldn't help but post this quote)...

 

Just reading Master of Mankind by ADB (I only buy HH in MMPB so a fair bit behind)...

 

"Her last thought, as [redacted] stepped closer, was that she would still be alive when he started eating her. Fortunately, she was wrong."

Frankly, how is this horror? A fearsome monster killing somebody before eating them is as basal and crude as you can get with horror. That's not really an example of "horror" living in the BL. Maybe it would be horrifying if it wasn't in warhammer, the universe of fearsome monsters killing people before they eat you, and you hoping it stays in that order. But it is warhammer and things like this are banal at this point. Rather if I were to put an example of horror in 40k, I'd quote Flayed.

 

 

 

'Sergeant Vilda,' Quintus warned, glancing up the road. 'Another wave of necrons is approaching…'

But Vilda didn't acknowledge his battle-brother. 'The Megir has ordered we select the best specimens from your settlement, those strong and healthy enough to bear future generations who might join the ranks of the Death Spectres.'

 

Prime stock. Vilda's early comment replayed in her mind, filling her with a deeper horror than the Flayers had ever induced.

 

'Suitable colonies are few and far between this far from the heart of the Imperium. An Exterminatus order has been issued and you will be taken to a suitable breeding world near Occludus. A glorious future awaits, girl. You will serve your Emperor well.'

 

Not only is this passage far darker in content and more revolting, it's fridge horror that becomes most disturbing the more you mentally chew on it. How many other Chapters practice this? How many worlds operated by a single Chapter can be like this? Does anybody even raise an eyebrow over this, or is this merely a case of institutionalized suffering and inhumanity by the Imperium accepted as normalcy? Not only does it expand the universe in just a couple sentences, it also provides a horrifying revelation about the Death Spectres and any Chapters like them.

 

(Also it provides an interesting contrast. Most of the short story is Flayers doing terribly painful [lethal] things to people, but the most horrifying and inhuman part of the story isn't the Necrons, it's the callous disregard of other humans by the Brothers of the Chapter who see a human merely as breeding stock.)

 

 

And see, this is precisely the reason I am entirely not looking forward to this line.

 

It's going to be an excuse for writers to indulge in the worst aspects of the Grimdarkness: pointless evil to the point of stupidity, which only makes me question how the Imperium survived for the last ten thousand of years, because it is filled with cretins.

 

It boils down to a single point: Grimdarkness, for me, has a feeling of scary, oppressive horror, when I see people acting to the best of their abilities and that's not enough. And that's something that BL doesn't do any more. Over the years, more and more, the Grimdarkness became this: Every person in the Imperium, bar select few, is a moron who is too brain dead to tie their own shoe laces, and said morons indulge in pointless evil acts, that are also counter-productive on the scale of the Imperium.

 

And it relies on people not doing research into things like military tactics and strategies, functioning of large scale polities or morality, for that matter. Research I did.

 

Ironically, because I wanted to write for BL.

 

"But Darth, Imperium of Mankind is not good guys, why do you want to portray them as such?" I hear you ask.

 

Because, contrary to majority of the human population, I am, at my core, utilitarian. That philosophy can be used to justify acts that would disgust you, that would horrify you, and that you would, on the level of moral intuition, call evil ten times out of ten. So when I say something is evil, it means that I consider it unjustifiable under that philosophy. 1984 doesn't become less horrifying because it is justified. It arguably becomes more so.

 

But nope. Screw moral complexity, that relies on various acts being seen as justified or not justified under different moral paradigms and thus facilitate a variety of interesting interpretations, no, that would be too nice for me. What we need is moral ambiguity, achieved in the usual manner: Let's have every side of conflict act in pointlessly evil way, so that we can shift the discussion to the scoring board of who is the most evil polity around.

 

Chaos wins, by the way. Barely, because BL is doing their best to pile more pointless and stupid atrocities an Imperium's feet.

 

It's not horror. It's a caricature.

 

And that's the end of this rant.

 

 

Nice hubris there.

[bluntblade]

 

 

Pp's point didn't read to me like he only wanted to feel good. He was saying more that he didn't want to gorefest lit.

 

So basically wanting Alien rather than AVP2. Which we may just all be able to agree on here.

Oh I can agree. When I talk about for example my scenario of a father watching his kids get turned into protein gruel by an Iron Warrior and him hapless as a weak and defenseless slave, I don't mean describing that act in detail. I want the detail to focus on the emotions of the father and his reaction. To put in the context of a film, how the camera sweeps away from the actual butchery in favor of the human reaction of the unfortunate witness. Because ultimately due to our own nature, violence loses its impact on us. Swiftly too. It's the emotional agony of characters and building sympathy with them that avoids this attrition of the audience's interest in the character.

 

Such "goreporn" material after all not only just loses its impact after a while, but becomes comedic. It's why I personally prefer works like Silence of the Lambs to any slasher fic or bolter porn. Violence is a powerful tool of the author, but it loses its potency swiftly. Thus it must be applied sparingly, and with extreme impact. IMO the "western" style or the eastern Kurosawa variant is a good source of inspiration, with violence being built up to until it explodes in a very short but brutal point in the story - both in terms of the violence itself but also the impact on the story in terms of character deaths, injuries, consequences, etc.

In that case, I'm glad to know we're on the same page.

[MrDarth151]

Nice hubris there.

 

 

Congratulations. You have successfully identified the most easily attackable line in the entire post, while entirely ignoring the rest of it.

 

Enjoy the likes that will inevitably flow towards you, because you defended the 40k from evil attacks of a villain such as I. I am sure it will be gratifying.

 

At any rate, if it is hubris to say that I did research when I did, so be it. I did said research. Within the context of 40k, it causes me no end of frustration. I get by just fine ignoring it.

 

Basically, I fail to see your point.

[DukeLeto69]

 

If any of us needed proof that "horror" is alive and present in current BL books (pretty sure none of us do need it but couldn't help but post this quote)...

Just reading Master of Mankind by ADB (I only buy HH in MMPB so a fair bit behind)...

"Her last thought, as [redacted] stepped closer, was that she would still be alive when he started eating her. Fortunately, she was wrong."

 

Frankly, how is this horror? A fearsome monster killing somebody before eating them is as basal and crude as you can get with horror. That's not really an example of "horror" living in the BL. Maybe it would be horrifying if it wasn't in warhammer, the universe of fearsome monsters killing people before they eat you, and you hoping it stays in that order. But it is warhammer and things like this are banal at this point. Rather if I were to put an example of horror in 40k, I'd quote Flayed.

 

.)

You are sort of missing the point of my post. I wasn't saying THAT is horror I was saying that horror is already very present in BL fiction. I just happened to be reading MoM at that moment and found that sentence pretty damn horrific (not banal to me).

 

In fact the following chapter was even more horrific as it went into detail about someone in the Mechanicus being turned into a machine (I simplify). What they go through physically and psychologically is most certainly horrific.

 

Not read Flayed, perhaps I should?

 

Also see my earlier posts in his thread I what I hope we get from the Warhammer Horror imprint... Opportunities for more stories away from the front line/battlefield that explore the domestic set up of the Imperium and "normal" folks going about their lives and getting pulled into terrible horrific situations (and not a super warrior in sight please).

 

As long as BL do that then I think there is room for all manner of horror styles and sub-genres. However, I doubt the stories will be more "horrific" than some of the more horror tinged war stories we have already been getting. As you say, that is part and parcel of the grim dark future setting anyway.

[A D-B]

 

Nice hubris there.

 

 

Congratulations. You have successfully identified the most easily attackable line in the entire post, while entirely ignoring the rest of it.

 

Enjoy the likes that will inevitably flow towards you, because you defended the 40k from evil attacks of a villain such as I. I am sure it will be gratifying.

 

At any rate, if it is hubris to say that I did research when I did, so be it. I did said research. Within the context of 40k, it causes me no end of frustration. I get by just fine ignoring it.

 

Basically, I fail to see your point.

 

I'll level with you, straight-up, because I think you're missing his point.

 

Do you know what would happen, if you published your take on the Emperor, which you believe is the one that makes sense? Do you know what would happen if you published a book with your heavily researched and nuanced view on Warhammer 40,000? I'm not being sarcastic, here. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 

 

A bunch of people would say your vision of the setting was wrong. Others would say your view on the Emperor conflicted with canon, or with common sense extrapolated from the setting. A bunch would say that you needed to do research on what you were writing about.

 

And so on. Some would be right. Some would be wrong. But it'd be there in spades, the way it is for everyone that publishes anything.

 

I'd probably be one of them; I've seen you trying to shoot down work that I know is objectively right in terms of canon and theme, and that makes perfect sense to me and all of the IP checkers and editors and other authors that reviewed it first, and that matches my own research. I've seen holes in your explanations and belief on how things really should be. I don't mean I disagree with everything you say; on the contrary, I'd say we share waaaaay more in common than we have in terms of differences, especially in terms of non-Emperor-based musings. We agree on a huge, huge amount (which is why I feel confident saying this without sounding like I'm giving you grief). But some of the things you declare most adamantly, I could drive a horde of Land Raiders through the holes in it. I don't, because it wearies me and goes nowhere and is basically pointless.

 

Now, I'm probably the luckiest BL author in terms of my readership and reviews. I sure as hell wouldn't trade my feedback for anyone else's. But when Fedor is speaking of hubris up there, I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it doesn't matter what you think you know, or how right you feel you might be. It's a dangerous attitude for a creative to hold, when you speak about your own stuff in that tone. It sounds like hubris. And I daresay that was Fedor's point. That's all.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think the most illuminating part of that whole thing was where he describes himself as utilitarian as if a philosophy is a football team or political party you pick from a selection.

[Volt]

I think the most illuminating part of that whole thing was where he describes himself as utilitarian as if a philosophy is a football team or political party you pick from a selection.

Philosophy is divided into opposing schools of thought that people either self identify with or simply fall into because of their actions. 

[Marshal Rohr]

You’re making the same mistake he is.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

Nice hubris there.

 

 

Congratulations. You have successfully identified the most easily attackable line in the entire post, while entirely ignoring the rest of it.

 

Enjoy the likes that will inevitably flow towards you, because you defended the 40k from evil attacks of a villain such as I. I am sure it will be gratifying.

 

At any rate, if it is hubris to say that I did research when I did, so be it. I did said research. Within the context of 40k, it causes me no end of frustration. I get by just fine ignoring it.

 

Basically, I fail to see your point.

 

I'll level with you, straight-up, because I think you're missing his point.

 

Do you know what would happen, if you published your take on the Emperor, which you believe is the one that makes sense? Do you know what would happen if you published a book with your heavily researched and nuanced view on Warhammer 40,000? I'm not being sarcastic, here. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 

 

A bunch of people would say your vision of the setting was wrong. Others would say your view on the Emperor conflicted with canon, or with common sense extrapolated from the setting. A bunch would say that you needed to do research on what you were writing about.

 

And so on. Some would be right. Some would be wrong. But it'd be there in spades, the way it is for everyone that publishes anything.

 

I'd probably be one of them; I've seen you trying to shoot down work that I know is objectively right in terms of canon and theme, and that makes perfect sense to me and all of the IP checkers and editors and other authors that reviewed it first, and that matches my own research. I've seen holes in your explanations and belief on how things really should be. I don't mean I disagree with everything you say; on the contrary, I'd say we share waaaaay more in common than we have in terms of differences, especially in terms of non-Emperor-based musings. We agree on a huge, huge amount (which is why I feel confident saying this without sounding like I'm giving you grief). But some of the things you declare most adamantly, I could drive a horde of Land Raiders through the holes in it. I don't, because it wearies me and goes nowhere and is basically pointless.

 

Now, I'm probably the luckiest BL author in terms of my readership and reviews. I sure as hell wouldn't trade my feedback for anyone else's. But when Fedor is speaking of hubris up there, I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it doesn't matter what you think you know, or how right you feel you might be. It's a dangerous attitude for a creative to hold, when you speak about your own stuff in that tone. It sounds like hubris. And I daresay that was Fedor's point. That's all.

 

 

We actually do agree far more than we disagree.

 

*Sigh*

 

In all honesty, I should just put it in my signature here: Everything I say is subjective. It must be subjective, as we cannot speak of individual interpretations with objectivity. We can achieve inter-subjectivity, but that's about it.

 

The problem, I feel, is the tone deafness of text. I tend to find that, when I do not check myself, I tend to come off as far more arrogant than I actually am. And I also tend to be snarky, which doesn't help.

 

It's also the problem of axioms. To create a consistent argument, some things need to be taken as true. But axioms are to be assumed. And therefore the problem arises: I speak of things as if they were true, even though I am aware of contradictory examples, because it is required for the consistency of the argument. To people who do not know me very well, however, it comes as if I declare those things true in absolute logical sense, as immovable tautologies. Which is not true.

 

At the same time, however, I cannot approach it on evidence to evidence basis. There is a mass of 40k sources. Everything has been contradicted one time or another, and often deliberate vagueness of the source material does not help if we want to talk in more... absolute, for the lack of a better word, terms. I find it incredibly easy to question my own arguments, believe me.

 

And there is suspension of disbelief. Mine's easier to break than most people, when it comes to military fiction. People can question me, I have never claimed to an oracle to end all oracles, though I prefer when people actually question me, rather than just state I am wrong.

 

The easiest way to say it is that I have a strong way of voicing opinions that are by no means impossible to abolish. And you know. Personal preference.

 

 

You’re making the same mistake he is.

 

And that mistake would be? Because I am not entirely sure what you are trying to argue here.

[A D-B]

 

 

 

Nice hubris there.

 

 

Congratulations. You have successfully identified the most easily attackable line in the entire post, while entirely ignoring the rest of it.

 

Enjoy the likes that will inevitably flow towards you, because you defended the 40k from evil attacks of a villain such as I. I am sure it will be gratifying.

 

At any rate, if it is hubris to say that I did research when I did, so be it. I did said research. Within the context of 40k, it causes me no end of frustration. I get by just fine ignoring it.

 

Basically, I fail to see your point.

 

I'll level with you, straight-up, because I think you're missing his point.

 

Do you know what would happen, if you published your take on the Emperor, which you believe is the one that makes sense? Do you know what would happen if you published a book with your heavily researched and nuanced view on Warhammer 40,000? I'm not being sarcastic, here. I can tell you exactly what would happen. 

 

A bunch of people would say your vision of the setting was wrong. Others would say your view on the Emperor conflicted with canon, or with common sense extrapolated from the setting. A bunch would say that you needed to do research on what you were writing about.

 

And so on. Some would be right. Some would be wrong. But it'd be there in spades, the way it is for everyone that publishes anything.

 

I'd probably be one of them; I've seen you trying to shoot down work that I know is objectively right in terms of canon and theme, and that makes perfect sense to me and all of the IP checkers and editors and other authors that reviewed it first, and that matches my own research. I've seen holes in your explanations and belief on how things really should be. I don't mean I disagree with everything you say; on the contrary, I'd say we share waaaaay more in common than we have in terms of differences, especially in terms of non-Emperor-based musings. We agree on a huge, huge amount (which is why I feel confident saying this without sounding like I'm giving you grief). But some of the things you declare most adamantly, I could drive a horde of Land Raiders through the holes in it. I don't, because it wearies me and goes nowhere and is basically pointless.

 

Now, I'm probably the luckiest BL author in terms of my readership and reviews. I sure as hell wouldn't trade my feedback for anyone else's. But when Fedor is speaking of hubris up there, I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it doesn't matter what you think you know, or how right you feel you might be. It's a dangerous attitude for a creative to hold, when you speak about your own stuff in that tone. It sounds like hubris. And I daresay that was Fedor's point. That's all.

 

 

We actually do agree far more that we disagree.

 

*Sigh*

 

In all honesty, I should just put it in my signature here: Everything I say is subjective. It must be subjective, as we cannot speak of individual interpretations with objectivity. We can achieve inter-subjectivity, but that's about it.

 

I should add too, I don't mean you-you. I was just using you for the meta-point; everyone would get that reaction upon publishing stuff. 

[Volt]

You’re making the same mistake he is.

 

Have you ever taken a philosophy course?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

You’re making the same mistake he is.

 

Have you ever taken a philosophy course?

 

I read Dove chocolate quotes.

[MrDarth151]

 

 

You’re making the same mistake he is.

 

Have you ever taken a philosophy course?

 

I read Dove chocolate quotes.

 

 

So, what you are saying is that you are trolling.

[Marshal Rohr]

No, I’m saying ‘have you ever taken a philosophy course’ is pretty silly considering I’ve mentioned plenty of times my background is government, IR, and politics and I’m not an amateur in economics. All of those require philosophy courses. You cannot be a ‘Utilitarian’ the way you’re Labour, or neoliberal. You can make a ultilitarian argument but you can’t be ultilitarian all the time. Frankly, if someone applied philosophy literally in their conduct I’d check for Asberger’s because something is wrong with the way they have been socialized.

[MrDarth151]

No, I’m saying ‘have you ever taken a philosophy course’ is pretty silly considering I’ve mentioned plenty of times my background is government, IR, and politics and I’m not an amateur in economics. All of those require philosophy courses. You cannot be a ‘Utilitarian’ the way you’re Labour, or neoliberal. You can make a ultilitarian argument but you can’t be ultilitarian all the time. Frankly, if someone applied philosophy literally in their conduct I’d check for Asberger’s because something is wrong with the way they have been socialized.

 

If you had philosophy course, then you should know that is incorrect. I majored in ethics. If you cannot compartmentalise to the point that you cannot declare for a category as wide as utilitarianism, it's more likely that you actually do not have a formed moral reasoning and/or moral calculus, and rely on moral intuitions instead. That, or you are a moral relativist.

 

Pretty much every ethic I know identifies with a major ethical movement, one or the other. Deontology, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism... all have big proponents, and all are developed enough to make for a solid basis of moral reasoning.

 

Utilitarianism is a method. It doesn't mean that you follow Mill to the letter, because it's century and half old, and there have been many variations on it since. And because of different focuses our studies had, I can say with confidence that I most likely went through more works dealing with utilitarianism than you had philosophy period, and that you are in fact incorrect.

 

Or rather, you are correct, if you take moral relativity to be absolute. At which point, why even make moral arguments in the first place?

[WarriorFish]

This topic seems to have lost its way; please remember what the B&C is here for and respect the rules as you agreed to do when creating your account.