Is the drive for canonicity (or continuity) in fan cu toxic?

[aa.logan]

If the Inquisition were removed from the background, would the Eisenhorn books still be good?

 

The Horror imprint is a} brilliant b} intended to be accessible for those outside the BL audience. The Infernal Coil books work in the same way. The Necromunda novels can be read and analysed as stand-alone titles.

 

Canon may well influence the content of books but the best can stand on their own outside of it. Valdor, for example, explores the formation of the Imperium but is equally a Hobbesian of power and tyranny; the lore reveals are nifty but they supplant the story in my eyes rather than acting as the scaffolding for it to be built around.

[Scribe]

As I said, a good story is still a good story. You could read the Soul Hunter series and still enjoy it without knowing what 40K is.

 

That said, there is a framework in which the stories take place. The setting is a thing, and it has weight. Canon, exists. 

[Lord Marshal]

I'll give a more detailed response when I have time, but frankly it just reads like the usual suspects having to really reach to defend Disney's abysmal handling of anything resembling canon consistency under the gaslighting of, "If you point out the problems in the product you're being toxic."

 

There's nothing wrong with holding an IP's internal consistency to account. It just comes off as this somewhat recent thing where in a lot of media that has a lot of plot holes or contradictions just have any criticism handwaved off as, "w-well maybe it was deliberate and open to interpretation!" even though there's zero signs to suggest that was in any way deliberate and more likely a failing on the author's part (since, y'know, even the best aren't infallible). If that's something which has been established then, yeah sure, but something tells me those kind of settings and stories aren't what the article was referring to.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Lord Marshal

[bluntblade]

As someone who's defended some controversial Disney films and still loves some of those films despite now hating his own love for those films, that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about an approach to media in which only the surface-level stuff is really discussed and the logical strength of a film is held up as more important than its emotional impact or metaphorical meaning.

 

To parahrase Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas, stories "need to function emotionally as well as logically." And this is where some BL stuff falls down, as it just shovels a load of lore at us and the result can be a story which means nothing. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by bluntblade

[bluntblade]

I will happily josh at the logic gaps in Star Trek: Into Darkness, but by far the bigger problems are that it's all plot and very little story, resets character development from the previous film and has big moments revolve around nostalgia (I am Khan!) in a way that creates a disconnect between their significance to the audience and the nothing that they mean to the characters within the scene.

[aa.logan]

As someone who's defended some controversial Disney films and still loves some of those films despite now hating his own love for those films, that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about an approach to media in which only the surface-level stuff is really discussed and the logical strength of a film is held up as more important than its emotional impact or metaphorical meaning.

 

To parahrase Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas, stories "need to function emotionally as well as logically." And this is where some BL stuff falls down, as it just shovels a load of lore at us and the result can be a story which means nothing.

 

That and people rushing to conclusions based on online summaries without consuming the source material themselves...

[Scribe]

 

To parahrase Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas, stories "need to function emotionally as well as logically." And this is where some BL stuff falls down, as it just shovels a load of lore at us and the result can be a story which means nothing. 

 

This is kind of the issue for me.

 

I'm not asking for BL/FW/GW lore to hit some kind of literary benchmark, worthy of consideration with the best novels of our age.

 

It should not be too much to ask for internally consistent, and logical function within the context of the setting.

 

There are authors which do this. For GW/BL to actively state 'nothing is canon' IS ACTUALLY FARCICAL. Of course there is a canon. It is a shared setting with decades of built up lore!

 

PS: The Eldar Fall caused the birth of Slaanesh, and the Dark Eldar are based out of the Webway, which btw, exists.

[bluntblade]

I'm not sure any of us have really spoken in support of the view you're criticising there, Scribe. (Glances at Phoebus, Roomsky and Xisor)

[Scribe]

No, I know. It's the basic premise, the party line, that is 'there is no canon' in the setting which I know is the GW/BL line, but it just fails.

 

It is simply an absurd position.

 

The Ultramarines are one of the Imperiums original Legions. :p

[Xisor]

I'll defend that particular straw man, personally.

 

tl;dr - I may have set the straw man on fire whilst defending it. I can only apologise to all involved.

 

--- 

 

The problem of canon as you're describing it, Scribe (err, ascribing it?), is that it requires encyclopaedic assimilation and re-assimilation of the canon each time it's added to or amended.

 

I've had a little experience of 'configuration management' for big software projects. Not entire games, but fairly trivial 'complicated systems' - and it's a bloody nightmare. Even when whole teams organise on the basis of managing it, it's catastrophic. No major IP that I'm aware of has managed it cleanly.

 

Of course, in engineering (and less catastrophically, in more innocuous bits of software engineering, games development etc), things literally break and stop working when these things are misconfigured.

 

Glitches, errors, bugs, bad design decisions, unintended consequences... these are all real aspects.

 

How often, in Skyrim say, did the developers intend for you to scale cliff-faces on horseback?

 

The same, to an extent, applies to fiction. Hell, to an extend, it's why authors get a lot of flak for unintended (but nevertheless plain) racism of sexism and so forth - they may not have intended to cast aspersions, but the aspersions are there. The fact that all your characters are lusty, strapping men might not have been a conscious decision, but also having a villain who's a fat woman will nevertheless not play well with the Lord Marshall's "usual suspects" (e.g. perhaps people who are happy to discuss unintended consequences rather than have them waved away [or perhaps: allowed to pass without comment]  just because they were unintended).

 

It's for this reason that planned obsolescence is a thing - and we see it in Games Workshop's tabletop stuff, most particularly: Warhammer Underworlds. The majority (or a sizeable portion, if not the majority) of cards from Shadespire are unusable nowadays. The wardbands from Shadespire are basically non-entities these days, landing uselessly (if they appear at all) in modern instances of the game.

 

When vaguely, oddly, fuzzily, messily applied to fiction, it means that there is obviously going to be seams and joins, errors, errata, messed ups and little forgetful moments.

 

But to talk about it all as if it's a single, coherent entity? It's like talking about "fans of 40k novels" as if they're a distinct, unified, easily parameterised and talked about set of people.

 

There may be traits and intriguing facts or factoids or stereotypes or whatever that can be dredged out of the morass of data points, but to vociferously argue about fandom is itself a fraught and difficult thing. (This is dangerous territory for me to tread, as it undermines the very concept expressed in the heart of the article at the start of the thread: that we can talk about "how people interact with fiction" in any seriously meaningful way...!)

 

HOWEVER, the actions and attitudes of fans is at least a little closer to being "real", to being measurable and parametrisable. (If it isn't, to some degree, comprehensible or eventually understandable and subject to serious analysis to satisfy the likes of this discussion, social science a grim darkness in its far future.)

 

The substance of 40k's canon, however, its a step further removed. Not only doesn't it actually exist, any  judgements made about it necessarily must be confounded by passing through the set of problems I allude to above: fans of 40k. 

 

If canon exists, it exists in the minds & gestalt of people who consider it, who share it.

 

My point then is that the canon you're ascribing isn't as rigorously or meticulously managed as you might want. The IP, the branding is. But the canon's secondary to that.

 

And that applies editorially too: the development studio's writers and developers may be working to an unspoken, loosely agreed canon. For any given project, they may have come up with 'the rules' or principles or guidelines to unify the project. (Look at the Horus Heresy's Lords of Terra meetings.)

 

However, it took the debut of Laurie Goulding in the BL editorial team, to really start assembling "the answers", and defining what he would be referring to as when he needed to know "the truth". (It should be noted: he also had some editorial authority over it, but also had stakeholders who could shove their oars in, I'd imagined. Not to mention, he had other bosses who held the project purses.)

 

And even with Laurie, he was assembling those as a reference for the purpose of continuing with his own agenda: making his (and his colleagues/collaborators) lives easier in editing books.

 

It might be tantamount to canon, but even then he would regularly disagree with authors on it. As I'm sure others would attest (and perhaps AA Logan's actually transcribed notes to this effect, down the years!), hearing authors, creators, editors, artists and such weigh in on this for themselves really emphasises what's going on here.

 

For 40k (and other GW IPs) there isn't a pre-defined, managed canon.

 

And yet equally, as I think you (Scribe) would agree: there *BLATANTLY* is one. We all agree that Space Marines are about 8ft tall, give or take? We know that there's main numbered marks of Power Armour. We know that if someone turned up rolling off a dozen new very clearly distinct varieties all under the guise of some hitherto unknown designation, say "Pattern 11 Power Armour" and claimed it was all perfectly cromulent...

 

We'd all have a moment's pause. Some of the more adaptable of us might take it in our stride, whilst others might seek to quote Guy Haley's random tech priest overheard by a young* Belisarius** Cawl: "He's breaking the lore!"

 

But sadly, that'd not be the case.

 

The canon as it exists doesn't exist. Or at least, it exists as a sort of emergent, vaguely agreed, largely undefined set of fuzzy associations and things that sort of line up.

 

(See the interplay of Battletomes across editions in Age of Sigmar, or older Codexes [or Codices, if you prefer {though I've heard compelling, authoritative  reasons for why it's wrong, and disregarded them all the same}]  - these things straddle the boundaries inelegantly. What's canon for 40k's 4th Edition?)

 

It isn't managed precisely, or cleanly, even when the effort is being made to do exactly that.

 

So 40k's canon isn't managed.

 

But I'd grant, an emergent, fuzzy canon can be considered real. But I think you'd find that a lonely hill to die on - I know I would.

 

I don't like the concept, but I do like the one that Robey Jenkins (and - to stick to Black Library via his ace and creepy "Phobos Worked in Adamant" from the Planetkill Anthology, and so in keeping with Bolter and Chainsword rule keeping [what's the canon rules of the form, again?]) championed: Games Workshop's approach to canon isn't "canon doesn't exist", nor is it "canon does exist, but we don't like to talk about it", it's in keeping with the old Inquisitor/=][= game (of which the interplay between the concepts of the rulebook version of Inquisitor Eisenhorn, and Inquisitor Eisenhorn as appears in the Black Library novels should give everyone hereabouts VERY great concern! [or no concern at all, two perfectly agreeable, perfectly distinct iterations of the same concept can exist, because the world is messy and canon isn't really the right word for all this anyway... {I forget how many bracket-levels I went down, and don't want to check, so prepare to go off-piste.

 

In keeping with =][=, Robey Jenkins' purported version of Games Workshop's 100% OFFICIAL, in no-way subjective take on things pertaining to canon went basically like this:

 

EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD IS A LIE.

 

---

 

I think that's broadly agreeable. Canon exists in the same way that the Inquisition exists: it has a history, it has many moving pieces, a million worlds will burn before it becomes united into a single, coherent entity.

 

Pedantically, I can totally accept a fuzzy, strange canon - essentially captured as "what everyone working on 40k agrees about 40k, plus whatever random thing they find when raking through old books for inspiration/motivation/fun/to look busy" with the added confounding factor: "as seen by other people who interact with 40k".

 

So, for practical, conversational purposes, I'll step right through that portal to hell that is EYHBTIAL (EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD IS A LIE), and go back to "40k doesn't have a canon".

 

Not because there isn't one, per se, but because I find the discussion leads me inexorably to ridiculous lexhorreagraphical outbursts like this post.

 

But - annoyingly - I do find it FASCINATING.

[SkimaskMohawk]

So if the siege of terra series ends with horus killing the emperor and winning the heresy, is it toxic to have expected it to go the other way? Or should we just accept it because the official line is "everything is canon" .

[Scribe]

So if the siege of terra series ends with horus killing the emperor and winning the heresy, is it toxic to have expected it to go the other way? Or should we just accept it because the official line is "everything is canon" .

 

Exactly such. Now obviously nobody with sense EXPECTS this to happen, and yet 'nothing is canon' ALLOWS for it to be a potential option. Even as we grasp for the absurd here, that in and of itself, the realization that this is an ABSURD over reach, proves that there is indeed, 'canon'.

 

There are facts in the setting. Are there contradictions? Of course there are, and that is both setting appropriate, (as its built into the setting) and also a harsh reality when you are looking at a 25+ year old IP that has gone through dozens of iterations, passed through literally hundreds of hands, with various levels of oversight.

 

I get that. I expect that.

 

The crux of my position is hopefully clear. 

 

There are facts, there are aspects of the setting that are not debatable. The 'everything is a lie' is a nice little wink/nod that lets GW get away with mistakes, builds ambiguity directly into the lore/setting, and is nice to spout off when a mistake is made, but make no error here.

 

There is canon in 40K.

 

Dante lead's the Blood Angels.

 

What is the point of these little quips? They prove the point. As conflicting, contradictory, or outright wrong some entries in the assembled construct that is 40K is, there are facts of the setting.

 

To say 'well those could be changed on a whim' is true, but it is also not relevant. There are 4 primary Chaos Gods. Thats fact. That's unchanged. Thats 25 years of histoy, reinforcement, and lore.

 

I'm still pissed that the new Flesh hounds have 3 claws on each foot, but hey, we cant win them all.

[RandyB]

Yes, it's toxic. Because it ultimately comes from a toxic place in the human psyche: the desire to control others.

 

The desire is expressed in this context as the desire to sit in judgement over the creative works of another - and over the creator of those works. If the creative work does not meet with the approval of the one who claims right of judgement, then that work, and the creator thereof, are judged to be inferior and not worthy of any good.

 

For the lore of 40K, I say only one thing: "unreliable narrator". This is the official position of GW. Expecting anything else from any published 40K lore is done at your own risk.

[mc warhammer]

@ Roomsky

 

"I don't believe the drive for a consistent canon is a toxic trait, no.

 

 

 

Racism, sexism, gatekeeping, willingness to personally harass a creator, that is what makes a fandom toxic. These things may often appear to come from an obsession with canon, but it's really just because the person is racist, sexist, etc.

 

 

 

I do think an overwhelming obsession with canon can be silly when taken to extremes, and more than anything I believe the first thing on any creator's mind should be telling a good story."

 

Yes, desire for internal logical consistency is certainly not "toxic" behavior in and of itself. Arguments that it somehow is, to me, smack of deflection to cover up editorial sloppiness.

 

A toxic fandom is a fandom that goes about voicing its desires in an uncivil and harassing manner.

 

i don't think the author is arguing that canon is and of itself a "toxic" thing, (he quite plainly states it isn't so ). i believe he offers the concept up in

the same way "toxicity" is used in sociology. "toxic masculinity"  doesn't argue that self reliance, physical strength and competition are themselves bad ideals but that slavishly holding those ideals to impossible standards can result in abusive behaviour.

 

canon (and continuity) aren't toxic, but the way we sometimes interact with them can create a toxic system. when individuals slavishly adhere to this system, we see abuse; we've all seen it go down, maybe not so much on these boards, but it's hard not to bump into it on the internet.

 

 

 

For GW/BL to actively state 'nothing is canon' IS ACTUALLY FARCICAL. Of course there is a canon. It is a shared setting with decades of built up lore!

 

PS: The Eldar Fall caused the birth of Slaanesh, and the Dark Eldar are based out of the Webway, which btw, exists.

 

 

i think if GW stated that, we'd all feel the same (though a universe built on nothing but lies would be an interesting experiment). the full paraphrased quote is "nothing is canon and everything is canon" which is an entirely different beast.

 

adb has done a brilliant job of explaining how 40k loose canon works, better than i can, so i won't repeat it. i was initially sceptical, but he won me over.

 

it might also be worth offering up some distinctions?

 

"framework" -the underpinnings of any set universe that make it...well, a universe. 40k has space marines with implanted organs and 4 chaos gods

 

"official canon" -what the IP itself recognises

 

"canon" -what the fans define should be recognised

 

"fanon" - what's in your head. in your heeeeeeaaad. zoooombiieeee

 

"deuterocanon" - when the author throws something out in an interview or forum that has never been published. jk rowling loves this, but so does adb.

 

"continuity" -consistency of story. could be within the one book or series of books (even by the same author) or a universe (the MCU).

 

from continuity you start getting into sub things like editorial oversight, retcons, mistakes and whoopsies (robinson crusoe stripping naked to get supplies which he then puts in his pockets).

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Scribe]

Yes, it's toxic. Because it ultimately comes from a toxic place in the human psyche: the desire to control others.

 

The desire is expressed in this context as the desire to sit in judgement over the creative works of another - and over the creator of those works. If the creative work does not meet with the approval of the one who claims right of judgement, then that work, and the creator thereof, are judged to be inferior and not worthy of any good.

 

For the lore of 40K, I say only one thing: "unreliable narrator". This is the official position of GW. Expecting anything else from any published 40K lore is done at your own risk.

 

^^^

 

This is what I'm talking about. There is enough in the lore to put 'unreliable narrator' either to bed (there are 4 Primary Chaos Gods, and the Emperor rots on the Golden Throne) OR you simply have no basis to have a discussion around the setting or lore.

 

It is not 'toxic' and it is not about controlling others. It's about having a common point of reference with others, so you can move past the basics, and begin to talk about things that are not particularly obvious, or have more nuance than 'nah, my Hello Kitty marines are total legit, unreliable narrator, nothing is canon.'

 

To dismiss decades of built up history, decades of investment?

 

That's toxic.

[mc warhammer]

Yes, it's toxic. Because it ultimately comes from a toxic place in the human psyche: the desire to control others.

that's interesting. the times i've seen these blow ups happen (2 guys i sorta know on facebook stopped talking to each other over a "discussion" on whether or not the netflix marvel tv shows were considered canonical to the mcu films), there does seem to be a need to exert one viewpoint over another and bring the other person "into the fold".

 

for what reason i couldn't really fathom. someone could decide that only every 4th episode of 'daredevil' is canonical...cos 4 is an awesome number... and i'd be very happy for them. *shrug*

 

it might also be about being able to exert some extent of control over your own life too. if someone else is allowed to hold a separate truth, does that somehow threaten your own?

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Scribe]

 

Yes, it's toxic. Because it ultimately comes from a toxic place in the human psyche: the desire to control others.

that's interesting. the times i've seen these blow ups happen (2 guys i sorta know on facebook stop talking to each other over a "discussion" on whether or not the netflix marvel tv shows were considered canonical to the mcu films), there does seem to be a need to exert one viewpoint over another and bring the other person "into the fold".

 

for what reason i couldn't really fathom. someone could decide that only ever 4th episode of daredevil is canonical and i'd be very happy for them. *shrug*

 

it might also be about being able to exert some extent of control over your own life too. if someone else is allowed to hold a separate truth, does that somehow threaten your own?

 

 

No, because we all have head-canon, or fanon as you call it. People can hold to whatever they want for their own take, but you cannot discuss it with others and hold that it is true, and so any 'debate' around it is irrelevant.

 

'The World Eaters never lost a battle, and are undefeated in 10,000 years'.

 

'Uhh, the World Eaters lost at X, Y, and Z'.

 

'Nope, not in my canon, thats just lies and propaganda'.

 

Deep.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

Yes, it's toxic. Because it ultimately comes from a toxic place in the human psyche: the desire to control others.

that's interesting. the times i've seen these blow ups happen (2 guys i sorta know on facebook stop talking to each other over a "discussion" on whether or not the netflix marvel tv shows were considered canonical to the mcu films), there does seem to be a need to exert one viewpoint over another and bring the other person "into the fold".

 

for what reason i couldn't really fathom. someone could decide that only ever 4th episode of daredevil is canonical and i'd be very happy for them. *shrug*

 

it might also be about being able to exert some extent of control over your own life too. if someone else is allowed to hold a separate truth, does that somehow threaten your own?

 

 

No, because we all have head-canon, or fanon as you call it. People can hold to whatever they want for their own take, but you cannot discuss it with others and hold that it is true, and so any 'debate' around it is irrelevant.

 

'The World Eaters never lost a battle, and are undefeated in 10,000 years'.

 

'Uhh, the World Eaters lost at X, Y, and Z'.

 

'Nope, not in my canon, thats just lies and propaganda'.

 

Deep.

 

 

sure, which is why i suggested distinctions

 

you seem to be arguing against something that nobody here is proposing, so really if you think about it, you "win". unless i've missed it, no one has suggested that their particular headcanon should supplant official canon (moonreaper, come at me bro).

 

framework is one thing, canon another, headcanon yet another. we can and should have conversations that acknowledge and move between any and all if we want.

 

people are fluid that way.

 

the tv shows i work on have a series bible with certain unyielding elements (framework ie: that space marines get their abilities from implanted organs and not from eating spinach). how the writer, director/s, producer/s and actor/s interpret those elements is a mixture of agreed upon points but also head canon. and somehow, it works to create a singular product watched by thousands who all view it as a cohesive story

 

art is fluid that way.

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Scribe]

I suppose I'm railing against the fact that GW has the position that they do. That it would be called 'toxic' to suggest canon matters, just drives me a little nuts.

 

For RandyB to suggest its toxic clearly means some people are not getting it. I'm not here to win, simply to come to a common ground, that cannot exist if people say 'no canon'.

 

There was once, on the dark quiet place of Portent (perhaps it had become Warseer by then...) a timeline of 40K. A really really good by MvS if I remember correctly.

 

Thats the kind of stuff I'm here for, an actual understanding of a setting that I think is by now, wildly varied, unique, and interesting, but difficult to discuss if we simply allow people to believe what they want and pass it as fact.

 

EDIT: Perhaps it goes back to a post earlier.

 

Is your Framework, 'Canon' or is it Framework, something higher level, and "Canon" means more minute details?

 

Even by the scale you provided earlier, it all works until you get to fanon, which I dont think any of us seem to be disagreeing on.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Scribe

[Indefragable]

With the irony of what I am about to say not lost on me, I can’t stand the term “toxic.”

 

I may come back and add more later, but that’s it for now. 

[Scribe]

We must use the terms of discussion, even if we find them distasteful. :p

[mc warhammer]

I suppose I'm railing against the fact that GW has the position that they do. That it would be called 'toxic' to suggest canon matters, just drives me a little nuts.

 

fair enough man, but i guess i don't see the issue? from my understanding, GW are saying that your position is fine and comes under their umbrella use of the IP. they're also saying that fan b and c are cool too.

 

the linked article also doesn't suggest that canon 'mattering' is toxic. it suggests that a certain interaction with canon can result in toxicity.

 

our chat has brought up another idea, though:

 

its one thing to have a loose canon universe with an its-all-true-but-maybe-not approach, but its another thing to pull it off. i wonder if GW has.

 

 

Thats the kind of stuff I'm here for, an actual understanding of a setting that I think is by now, wildly varied, unique, and interesting, but difficult to discuss if we simply allow people to believe what they want and pass it as fact.

 

hmmm, i'm a little hesitant with terms like "allowing" people to discuss things in certain ways. i  don't "allow" anyone anything. and just because something is "difficult" doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

 

i remember MVS' document too, it was also something that was completely unofficial (despite him being an ex employee). so, it did require some individual reworking. i took it as a bit of fun, and it still stands for what it is. nothing published since diminishes it.

 

and what i was presenting before wasn't really a scale or a hierarchy, just offering up distinct talking points for what is actually a pretty large and complex fictional system. in my world, "framework" is the big broad paint strokes. the agreed upon stuff that makes the universe and the IP what it is. immutable facts. however, you can experiment and play within the cage defined by those facts.

 

40k framework facts: the horus heresy happened in 30k. the emperor had 20 (oops sorry, 21) primarchs. some fell to chaos. the space marines have implanted organs. there are eldar and tau and orks. there are 4 main chaos gods.

 

there is no published GW output to my knowledge that contradicts any of the fundamental building blocks of the 40k universe as we all understand it. no matter how many liberties a particular book or artwork or model may take.

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Scribe]

 

...

 

its one thing to have a loose canon universe with an its-all-true-but-maybe-not approach, but its another thing to pull it off. i wonder if GW has.

 

 

Thats the kind of stuff I'm here for, an actual understanding of a setting that I think is by now, wildly varied, unique, and interesting, but difficult to discuss if we simply allow people to believe what they want and pass it as fact.

 

hmmm, i'm a little hesitant with terms like "allowing" people to discuss things in certain ways. i  don't "allow" anyone anything. and just because something is "difficult" doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

 

i remember MVS' document too, it was also something that was completely unofficial (despite him being an ex employee). so, it did require some individual reworking. i took it as a bit of fun, and it still stands for what it is. nothing published since diminishes it.

 

and what i was presenting before wasn't really a scale or a hierarchy, just offering up distinct talking points for what is actually a pretty large and complex fictional system. in my world, "framework" is the big broad paint strokes. the agreed upon stuff that makes the universe and the IP what it is. immutable facts.

 

eg: the horus heresy happened in 30k. the emperor had 20 (oops sorry, 21) primarchs. some fell to chaos. the space marines have implanted organs. there are eldar and tau and orks. there are 4 main chaos gods.

 

there is no published GW output to my knowledge that contradicts any of the fundamental building blocks of the 40k universe as we all understand it. no matter how many liberties a particular book or artwork or model may take.

 

 

 

Has GW successfully implemented the 'it could be true, or not'? I dont think so. There is simply too much supporting documentation for the framework as you call it. How far that framework goes, is up for interpretation, but a framework absolutely does exist.

 

When I say 'allow' I mean it in the sense of account for, or embrace. Not 'no you must not speak this' but 'ok lets accept that the Emperor is actually Dorn'. You just cant do that. There are things which just do not work and they cannot be entered into the discussion as fact, because it breaks the framework upon which we need to have a basic understanding.

 

MvS document was not published, that much is true, but I do believe it was sourced. His dates came from actual rules/codex/white dwarf/novels and such. At least, thats how I remember it, but we are 15+ years out here at least I think.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has GW successfully implemented the 'it could be true, or not'? I dont think so. There is simply too much supporting documentation for the framework as you call it. How far that framework goes, is up for interpretation, but a framework absolutely does exist.

 

When I say 'allow' I mean it in the sense of account for, or embrace. Not 'no you must not speak this' but 'ok lets accept that the Emperor is actually Dorn'. You just cant do that. There are things which just do not work and they cannot be entered into the discussion as fact, because it breaks the framework upon which we need to have a basic understanding.

 

MvS document was not published, that much is true, but I do believe it was sourced. His dates came from actual rules/codex/white dwarf/novels and such. At least, thats how I remember it, but we are 15+ years out here at least I think.

 

but, afaik GW's position has never threatened the framework? though maybe what we define as framework is subjective.

 

i was more wondering about GW creating an environment where individual creatives writing contradictory or individual material do so with an eye on how it relates to other contradictory material by fellow artists. for instance, if you took the films 'rashomon' or 'hero' and cut up their retellings of the same events and released them as individual short films, each would be totally individualistic as stories and contradict one another. but, when viewed as a whole, you suddenly realise the contradictions are intentional and actually fit together to make a larger point. each one is piece of a giant puzzle that you're unaware of until you step back.

 

there's a cohesion to their incohesion, if that makes sense.

 

and i do understand what you're worried about, but i just don't see the evidence for that fear? is anyone here suggesting that we accept that dorn is the emperor? is this a rampant problem that we need to stamp out? or is it a fringe thing that kinda doesn't really have any impact?

 

MVS' deuterocanon opens up another discussion; that canon can often be about classism and access to information. a reason why what rowling says outside of the published work isn't taken as official canon is that (beyond dead authors) it's just unfair to expect readers worldwide to have constant access to any and all tidbits she might drop on pottermore's paid website or on her twitter account.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer

[mc warhammer]

io9 has an excellent article on canonicity today, which immediately made me think of this excellent forum and the language we use when talking about BL books - especially the Heresy and how spoiler culture and (un)critical language surrounds the books on wider interner:

 

https://io9.gizmodo.com/our-fascination-with-canon-is-killing-the-way-we-value-1842590915

 

But this craving for it above all else is a toxic attitude, not just to the way we talk about pieces of media from a critical perspective, but in fan circles as well. The hunger for facts above all else leads to things like “filler episode” becoming a derogatory term for stories that don’t advance the larger ongoing plot of a narrative or don’t include some shocking new revelation that someone can add to a list. It predicates the gatekeeping act of being a fan that is built on how much you know about a thing over whether you actually enjoy that thing or not. It’s an attitude that in turn feeds the equally unruly and constantly growing spoiler culture because a fandom that values pure details above all else puts weight in the knowledge of those details. The need robs discussions about the stories we get of nuance and interpretation, because who cares what you think happened when there’s an answer from the Word of God to that question you might have had?

 

meh. "advancing the plot" and "filler" are two terms i don't have much patience for myself.

 

but i think this should also be taken into account with the changes that modern technology and media consumption have brought with it. we live in the "golden era of binge tv". our pop culture is now so fractured (we have sub niche of sub niche of niches to access. there's no more beatles) and our access to any form of entertainment so unprecedented and so immediate that we are spoiled for choice.

 

whereas people were once more loyal to one tv show or franchise, allowing it to unfold as the creatives wanted it to, now...if each episode or installment doesn't offer that catch, that shock, that aha moment...we quickly lose interest. because we can, because the next big thing is already sitting in our suggested views. in my facebook feed just this morning i saw an ad "forget tiger king, this is your new must see series. next!". we're actively encouraged to be this way.

 

there is a pressure from audiences for immediate gratification, because they can get that through so many different channels now. that pressure is also felt and reflected in writing as well. i'm using mostly tv examples but it does extend to other mediums.

Edited April 4, 2020 by mc warhammer