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

[Xisor]

 

 

 

 

Its the 'Framework' vs 'Canon' vs 'Fanon or Headcanon' argument. In my Head Canon, that Shadow stepping sect of Ninja Marines doesnt exist, it is not internally consistent with the lore.

Funny enough, I had a couple videos pop up in my feed addressing the article that were significantly less kind than any response here. So, I figured I'd share

and

.

<Xisor's thoughts, exactly>

 

I think the person writing the article's heart is in the right place and I think they've got some genuinely good critiques of circles that put too much stock in canon. I've agreed with most of Scribe's pro-canon arguments in this thread, and I still believe people have a habit of taking things too far. Acknowledging there's more to a story than how it advances continuity is not the same as trying to destroy it.

That's a very fair point, and super-kudos to Scribe et al.: if everyone similarly inclined engaged in the way Scribe does, the original article wouldn't have ever existed.

 

It's a nuanced, appreciative and passionately contentious approach - but not at all toxic.

 

(And who here doesn't enjoy a *good*, stimulating, interesting argument on the Internet?)

 

That said, Scribe's side, so to speak ("fly with the Mor Dethyn, get shot with the Mor Dethyn" :P) tends to be perceived and experienced as getting bogged down on the relentlessly pedantic side. And in a fashion that as per he original article, has a tendency to shck the joy from passionately conferring and discussing subject matters.

 

(And heaven knows, I feel that pull all too often myself!)

 

As I'm sure a few folk hereabouts have been on the Internet for a Very Long Time - and huge appreciation to the throwback to MvS's Portent threads! (for those unaware, MvS was also the author of the last three volumes of the Liber Chaotica, with BL author Richard Williams [Relentless, Imperial Glory] doing Liber Khorne) - a lot of this discussion will be very memorable, or at least evoking memories down the decades.

 

Anecdotally, more than once on Warseer for example, I've found myself rooting through threads in an effort to dredge up some detail, got half-way through typing out an argument against some hide bound fool (or conversely, some free thinking radical with no appreciation of the lore), only to find out its my very own self I'm replying to...

 

Just to a post I'd made almost a decade ago!

 

----

 

That's not to comment rightly or wrongly, but that the passion and perspective does indeed change through time.

 

Incidentally, with the advent of all sorts of discourse this last decade, I've seen some intriguing developments in cultural references, not just in my own perspective.

 

I wonder how much "neurodiversity" factors into these issues?

 

(Particularly, say, the discrepancy of discussing things *between* "neurotypes". If anyone's done the daft "personality colour" stuff at work [etc], you can imagine the difference between an all-theorist book group's discussion, or an all-executive book group - or the awkward pain of a joint executuve/theorist group with no-one that's good at conciliation or bridge building or changing perspectives!)

 

I know focus and singular attention to details of special interests are part of the autism I experience, and I wonder if not adhering to the social norms of "how to enjoy things" is the toxicity afoot here: not that it's inherently toxic, but that it is jarring and "grinds the gears" of other people where, for them and their own predisposed style of engaging with fiction, they would find it much easier if I did it their way. (Their way grinds my gears, in this example. So we end up with two Spidermen pointing at each other accusingly.)

 

Or perhaps the reverse is the root: that a social norm has emerged parodying the stereotype, a passion to boil things down to Wikipedia entry factlets (I always think of a factoid as "sounds like a fact, but isn't", where as a factlet is more of a question/answer pairing you'd find in Trivial Pursuit - nobody uses it that wya though, so whatevs), and so people who have a less strong (less pressing day to day, not less genuine!) urge to engage with a singular interest find themselves intuitively mimicking/living that reductive "toxic" bevaviour, and so inadvertently adding to the misery, whilst thinking they're just doing about things in a normal, neutral, frictionless way? Like, that's the Done Thing.

 

Imagine training a small-talk AI based on the crappy smack-talk you get on some multi-player games?

 

Endlessly offensive but trivial "jokes" and references going nowhere, achieving extraordinarily little except to gatekeep and spread misery?

 

Maybe that's the Dark Age of Technology.

 

No doubt its a combination of many things I'd not considered.

 

But as others have said, and as I was keen to push (think back to "don't feed the trolls"), I don't think this is a new phenomenon.

 

It's just in a new iteration, and cycling at a somewhat different speed.

 

Or perhaps it isn't.

 

I wish I had some social science background (and, err, funding to research/study this, otherwise I'd have to do it in my spare time!), as I'm not sure I even have the foundations and groundwork to really grasp the ideas.

 

But as said, it's fascinating.

 

---

 

Things of ambiguous canonicty, if one accepts the idea of canon, which one shouldn't because it's deeply and unforgivably morally repugnant, but we'll forgive it just this once:

- Umbra Sumus

- Heretic Tomes

- Malal

- Bill King's account of the Emperor vs Horus

- published artist's sketchbooks

- discrepancies between audiobooks/audiodramas/scripts/short stories of the same story

[bluntblade]

 

Its the 'Framework' vs 'Canon' vs 'Fanon or Headcanon' argument. In my Head Canon, that Shadow stepping sect of Ninja Marines doesnt exist, it is not internally consistent with the lore.

 

Sorry, the nuance is lost on me. Agree to disagree friend,  I'm not convincing you and you're not convincing me.

 

 

 

 

Bringing things back around to the OP, I think most of us in this thread disagree with the article posted. We do value canon and continuity and disagree that it's "toxic" to be passionate about them. The most significant difference is that 40k isn't the MCU or Star Wars and the way Games Workshop handles its lore has more in common with the SCP Foundation, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls C0DA, and Dark Souls than most properties. Funny enough, I had a couple videos pop up in my feed addressing the article that were significantly less kind than any response here. So, I figured I'd share one and two.

 

Sanctity of Canon? "The Canon IS the story" in the comments? OK, that's the blunt-out point.

 

But... I feel there's some value in this still, if we narrow the focus to BL in particular. Because I have a suspicion that the moments and reveals from the HH, for example, which have the most profound impact on the fanbase will be the ones that served the story or the characters, rather than ticking boxes. To whit:

 

The Throne at Dark Glass serves to purposes beyond giving the Scars a way out of Dodge and adding to the Webway's Lexicanum article. The way in which the work was undertaken and the fact that in the end, it was infiltrated and sabotaged by the Paternova's agents serve to underline the horrible necessity of the Emperor's secrecy. As a result Wraight makes it serve not only his story here and now, but also Master of Mankind. It informs the stakes there before you get a greater sense of how much is at stake. And ultimately, it amplifies the tragedy in MoM, while back in PoH it underscores the Khan's theme of him and his own father being strangers to one another.

 

In the same way, Abdemon appearing in The Palatine Phoenix is a fun bit of recognition, but it's a little deeper than "everyone who knows who Darth Plagueis is, give yourselves five!" Reynolds takes the renowned hero and expands him a bit, using him to inform the character of the Third Legion in the wider setting while he also provides some character conflicts with the younger troops and Fulgrim himself. Now when we look at Eidolon, we see the old dignity and assurance which ought to define a Lord Commander, metastasing into something deeply unhealthy. And if we look with the long lens, we see that tragically, these positive attributes are the reason that Abdemon will die on Isstvan III.

Edited April 5, 2020 by bluntblade

[Rob P]

Isn't the heretical tomes thing just things like the Ian Watson books - the 'Heretical Tomes' but was just dropped?

 

Is the drive for canonicity (or continuity) in fan cu toxic? (What does 'cu' mean?)

 

Short answer is yes, in the context of Warhammer. But does toxicity really raise it's ugly head in the Warhammer fandom? Not really. I feel this topic has cropped up due to things like the 'realism' thread.

 

-------------------------

 

One of the things I love about the loose physics of the 40k universe is that 'the warp did it' allows for all sorts of possibilities. it allows for story telling and the absurdity of the setting to be elevated above continuity, but the authors are largely constrained by continuity (save maybe Fehevari). One of the big Horus Heresy mistakes in my opinion was correcting The Outcast Dead in Wolf Hunt (if that was the one). The correction was purely fan pandering for continuity.

 

In terms of canon, I love the loose(ish) canon of 40k. And I love the space fantasy setting. There are bits in the canon that I feel should die a death (e.g. the sensei and shaman collective souls making the Emperor), but the canon is loose enough to pick-and-mix.

 

I'm very much all is canon and nothing is canon on the Black Library shelf. Author's who care to not have back flipping terminators tend to get more love than those that do, but that appears to derive from comradeship of them being author/fans or those that care for the setting (continuity advocates?). That does remind me of a time that an author/editor annoyed me a lot. It was at a really early BLL (2nd or 3rd one) and Nick Kyme said that BL fiction is 'pulp fiction'. And I felt really defensive about the material and thought 'what a douche', because he had trivialised something that I had spent a lot of time and money on and which I cared about as much as any other fan cares about their favourite IP. I wonder if the inquisitorial search for canon and alleged toxicity comes from wanting to protect the thing from being trivialised? I mean, when I go into a bookstore and I see videogame tie-in fiction (and this is my own issue), I automatically assume 'that will be terrible'. Maybe the defence of canon is an attempt to preserve the novels as good genre fiction rather than letting them simply sit as 'pulp fiction'.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Rob P

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

 

 

Its the 'Framework' vs 'Canon' vs 'Fanon or Headcanon' argument. In my Head Canon, that Shadow stepping sect of Ninja Marines doesnt exist, it is not internally consistent with the lore.

Sorry, the nuance is lost on me. Agree to disagree friend, I'm not convincing you and you're not convincing me.

 

 

 

 

Bringing things back around to the OP, I think most of us in this thread disagree with the article posted. We do value canon and continuity and disagree that it's "toxic" to be passionate about them. The most significant difference is that 40k isn't the MCU or Star Wars and the way Games Workshop handles its lore has more in common with the SCP Foundation, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls C0DA, and Dark Souls than most properties. Funny enough, I had a couple videos pop up in my feed addressing the article that were significantly less kind than any response here. So, I figured I'd share

and

.

Sanctity of Canon? "The Canon IS the story" in the comments? OK, that's the blunt-out point.

 

But... I feel there's some value in this still, if we narrow the focus to BL in particular. Because I have a suspicion that the moments and reveals from the HH, for example, which have the most profound impact on the fanbase will be the ones that served the story or the characters, rather than ticking boxes. To whit:

 

The Throne at Dark Glass serves to purposes beyond giving the Scars a way out of Dodge and adding to the Webway's Lexicanum article. The way in which the work was undertaken and the fact that in the end, it was infiltrated and sabotaged by the Paternova's agents serve to underline the horrible necessity of the Emperor's secrecy. As a result Wraight makes it serve not only his story here and now, but also Master of Mankind. It informs the stakes there before you get a greater sense of how much is at stake. And ultimately, it amplifies the tragedy in MoM, while back in PoH it underscores the Khan's theme of him and his own father being strangers to one another.

 

In the same way, Abdemon appearing in The Palatine Phoenix is a fun bit of recognition, but it's a little deeper than "

" Reynolds takes the renowned hero and expands him a bit, using him to inform the character of the Third Legion in the wider setting while he also provides some character conflicts with the younger troops and Fulgrim himself. Now when we look at Eidolon, we see the old dignity and assurance which ought to define a Lord Commander, metastasing into something deeply unhealthy. And if we look with the long lens, we see that tragically, these positive attributes are the reason that Abdemon will die on Isstvan III.

Yes, but that's because those *expand*, they don't revoke, repeal, or violate.

 

Dark Glass is the kind of thing authors should do- it shows forth Imperial politics, reflects the Emp's scientific credentials, is destroyed, explaining its lack of 40k relevance, and adds to the background. It's a vast blank space in the canon canvass, Wraight added his paint. Well- I quite liked the idea as well as the execution.

 

If we get a book where the Emps and Horus don't duel, that's different.

 

The canon is the starting place, the ending place, a few hiw science works details, and a few events in-between. Authors have vast freedom in-between.

 

Take Execution Force. It does not function as an installment in the main narrative- which does exist- and probably should not be a "numbered" novel, which implies telling a sequential story. It does fill in quite a bit about the origin if the Assassins I like- Mal did it with the Emp's blessing. But it should have been a "side" novel instead of a "main narrative billing" novel. They fill different functions.

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

 

 

 

Its the 'Framework' vs 'Canon' vs 'Fanon or Headcanon' argument. In my Head Canon, that Shadow stepping sect of Ninja Marines doesnt exist, it is not internally consistent with the lore.

Funny enough, I had a couple videos pop up in my feed addressing the article that were significantly less kind than any response here. So, I figured I'd share

and

.

<Xisor's thoughts, exactly>

 

I think the person writing the article's heart is in the right place and I think they've got some genuinely good critiques of circles that put too much stock in canon. I've agreed with most of Scribe's pro-canon arguments in this thread, and I still believe people have a habit of taking things too far. Acknowledging there's more to a story than how it advances continuity is not the same as trying to destroy it.

That's a very fair point, and super-kudos to Scribe et al.: if everyone similarly inclined engaged in the way Scribe does, the original article wouldn't have ever existed.

 

It's a nuanced, appreciative and passionately contentious approach - but not at all toxic.

 

(And who here doesn't enjoy a *good*, stimulating, interesting argument on the Internet?)

 

That said, Scribe's side, so to speak ("fly with the Mor Dethyn, get shot with the Mor Dethyn" :P) tends to be perceived and experienced as getting bogged down on the relentlessly pedantic side. And in a fashion that as per he original article, has a tendency to shck the joy from passionately conferring and discussing subject matters.

 

(And heaven knows, I feel that pull all too often myself!)

 

As I'm sure a few folk hereabouts have been on the Internet for a Very Long Time - and huge appreciation to the throwback to MvS's Portent threads! (for those unaware, MvS was also the author of the last three volumes of the Liber Chaotica, with BL author Richard Williams [Relentless, Imperial Glory] doing Liber Khorne) - a lot of this discussion will be very memorable, or at least evoking memories down the decades.

 

Anecdotally, more than once on Warseer for example, I've found myself rooting through threads in an effort to dredge up some detail, got half-way through typing out an argument against some hide bound fool (or conversely, some free thinking radical with no appreciation of the lore), only to find out its my very own self I'm replying to...

 

Just to a post I'd made almost a decade ago!

 

----

 

That's not to comment rightly or wrongly, but that the passion and perspective does indeed change through time.

 

Incidentally, with the advent of all sorts of discourse this last decade, I've seen some intriguing developments in cultural references, not just in my own perspective.

 

I wonder how much "neurodiversity" factors into these issues?

 

(Particularly, say, the discrepancy of discussing things *between* "neurotypes". If anyone's done the daft "personality colour" stuff at work [etc], you can imagine the difference between an all-theorist book group's discussion, or an all-executive book group - or the awkward pain of a joint executuve/theorist group with no-one that's good at conciliation or bridge building or changing perspectives!)

 

I know focus and singular attention to details of special interests are part of the autism I experience, and I wonder if not adhering to the social norms of "how to enjoy things" is the toxicity afoot here: not that it's inherently toxic, but that it is jarring and "grinds the gears" of other people where, for them and their own predisposed style of engaging with fiction, they would find it much easier if I did it their way. (Their way grinds my gears, in this example. So we end up with two Spidermen pointing at each other accusingly.)

 

Or perhaps the reverse is the root: that a social norm has emerged parodying the stereotype, a passion to boil things down to Wikipedia entry factlets (I always think of a factoid as "sounds like a fact, but isn't", where as a factlet is more of a question/answer pairing you'd find in Trivial Pursuit - nobody uses it that wya though, so whatevs), and so people who have a less strong (less pressing day to day, not less genuine!) urge to engage with a singular interest find themselves intuitively mimicking/living that reductive "toxic" bevaviour, and so inadvertently adding to the misery, whilst thinking they're just doing about things in a normal, neutral, frictionless way? Like, that's the Done Thing.

 

Imagine training a small-talk AI based on the crappy smack-talk you get on some multi-player games?

 

Endlessly offensive but trivial "jokes" and references going nowhere, achieving extraordinarily little except to gatekeep and spread misery?

 

Maybe that's the Dark Age of Technology.

 

No doubt its a combination of many things I'd not considered.

 

But as others have said, and as I was keen to push (think back to "don't feed the trolls"), I don't think this is a new phenomenon.

 

It's just in a new iteration, and cycling at a somewhat different speed.

 

Or perhaps it isn't.

 

I wish I had some social science background (and, err, funding to research/study this, otherwise I'd have to do it in my spare time!), as I'm not sure I even have the foundations and groundwork to really grasp the ideas.

 

But as said, it's fascinating.

 

---

 

Things of ambiguous canonicty, if one accepts the idea of canon, which one shouldn't because it's deeply and unforgivably morally repugnant, but we'll forgive it just this once:

- Umbra Sumus

- Heretic Tomes

- Malal

- Bill King's account of the Emperor vs Horus

- published artist's sketchbooks

- discrepancies between audiobooks/audiodramas/scripts/short stories of the same story

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

[bluntblade]

But I don't think anyone's advocating a book where Horus and the Emperor don't duel. We're concerned, as is the guy in the original article, that fans demanding nothing but canon (a friend once argued that Age of Ultron's "advert" sections like Thor's lightning bath should really have been short films instead, while Star Wars wouldn't be any worse off had Solo been a Wookiepedia article) could be harming storytelling in popular media.

[Roomsky]

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

 

 

I'll happily argue word of god isn't canon, period. If you want it to be official, it has to go through an official channel.

 

In the case of IPs, authors can get away with saying plenty of things they wouldn't be allowed to actually place in the book. 

[bluntblade]

Particularly as Word of God can be devalued in a series with multiple authors. Poseidon might say that the intent was always for X, but then Hades insists that the scene is being played as Y.

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

 

I'll happily argue word of god isn't canon, period. If you want it to be official, it has to go through an official channel.

 

In the case of IPs, authors can get away with saying plenty of things they wouldn't be allowed to actually place in the book.

Disagree. If an author tells you scene X was included for reason Y, they wrote it for reason Y.

 

They didn't channel it from the ether.

 

Shared universe is different, but if Tolkien says Legolas is a Sindarin elf, he's a Sindarin elf.

 

I hate the blanket permission given to "Well, it wasn't clear to me, so the authir is wrong."

 

Graendal killed Asmodean. Full stop. If you don't like it, that's fine, but the author put it down.

 

EDIT: You realize some authirs maintain or endorse official FAQs and quote databases online?

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[BrainFireBob]

But I don't think anyone's advocating a book where Horus and the Emperor don't duel. We're concerned, as is the guy in the original article, that fans demanding nothing but canon (a friend once argued that Age of Ultron's "advert" sections like Thor's lightning bath should really have been short films instead, while Star Wars wouldn't be any worse off had Solo been a Wookiepedia article) could be harming storytelling in popular media.

What do you expect when tertiary materials, such as audio dramas or limited release novellas, originally billed as non-essential, contain essential info?

 

EDIT: Also, the last Star Wars was the fault of the second to last. It had to be nothing but canon in order to not leave plots dangling, since it was intended as a closed book ending. If not for that constraint, it could have spilled into a fourth film.

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[Roomsky]

 

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

I'll happily argue word of god isn't canon, period. If you want it to be official, it has to go through an official channel.

 

In the case of IPs, authors can get away with saying plenty of things they wouldn't be allowed to actually place in the book.

Disagree. If an author tells you scene X was included for reason Y, they wrote it for reason Y.

 

They didn't channel it from the ether.

 

Shared universe is different, but if Tolkien says Legolas is a Sindarin elf, he's a Sindarin elf.

 

I hate the blanket permission given to "Well, it wasn't clear to me, so the authir is wrong."

 

Graendal killed Asmodean. Full stop. If you don't like it, that's fine, but the author put it down.

 

EDIT: You realize some authirs maintain or endorse official FAQs and quote databases online?

 

 

I'd argue that if that were the case, more people would enjoy Zack Snyder's DC films because he generally has reasons for all the things people hate about them. If he says "Superman was as responsible as he could be when he knocked down all those buildings," people will retort "that was not apparent in the product, it appeared he didn't care." The text must support itself, and is the source of canon when it is finished.

 

If something is purely creator driven, I can see your argument even if I disagree with it. But again, for an IP that has various levels of oversight, Word of God cannot be equal to canon.

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

 

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

I'll happily argue word of god isn't canon, period. If you want it to be official, it has to go through an official channel.

 

In the case of IPs, authors can get away with saying plenty of things they wouldn't be allowed to actually place in the book.

Disagree. If an author tells you scene X was included for reason Y, they wrote it for reason Y.

 

They didn't channel it from the ether.

 

Shared universe is different, but if Tolkien says Legolas is a Sindarin elf, he's a Sindarin elf.

 

I hate the blanket permission given to "Well, it wasn't clear to me, so the authir is wrong."

 

Graendal killed Asmodean. Full stop. If you don't like it, that's fine, but the author put it down.

 

EDIT: You realize some authirs maintain or endorse official FAQs and quote databases online?

I'd argue that if that were the case, more people would enjoy Zack Snyder's DC films because he generally has reasons for all the things people hate about them. If he says "Superman was as responsible as he could be when he knocked down all those buildings," people will retort "that was not apparent in the product, it appeared he didn't care." The text must support itself, and is the source of canon when it is finished.

 

If something is purely creator driven, I can see your argument even if I disagree with it. But again, for an IP that has various levels of oversight, Word of God cannot be equal to canon.

We aren't using the same definition.

 

Sigismund duels Abaddon. A supporting psyker character watches, and notes "but it could only end one way. Sigismund's technique was flawless, but slow." The killshot is offscreen.

 

A fan insists that means the psyker *had* to immobilize Sigismund. The author, in interview, says "No, Abaddon did it. I wrote it that way because I thought it more evocative, but the "one way" referred to Abaddon winning."

 

That's the Word of God, and few things irritate like a fan who insists the next book is "wrong" when it outright states Abaddin killed Sigismund

 

EDIT: There's Word of God author creation, and Word of God author clarification.

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[BrainFireBob]

But I don't think anyone's advocating a book where Horus and the Emperor don't duel. We're concerned, as is the guy in the original article, that fans demanding nothing but canon (a friend once argued that Age of Ultron's "advert" sections like Thor's lightning bath should really have been short films instead, while Star Wars wouldn't be any worse off had Solo been a Wookiepedia article) could be harming storytelling in popular media.

This is a bit odd. Once made, it becomes cannon and nothing but cannon. It needs to connect to the previous and next installments at the correct places, is all. If Matrix II opened with Neo as the villain *abruptly with no reason ever given*, and was the story of his defeat, it would be seriously jarring. Or if in Empire Strikes Back, Vader and Palpatine were leading the heroic rebellion against the Alliance Death Star. Some points have to be fixed. That should not be constraining.

 

EDIT: Unless you mean going out of your way for fan service. That's poor authorship, though, not a fan demand

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[bluntblade]

I'd argue that a good story is far more than the information it contributes to the canon. Empire's important contribution isn't putting Vader under "parents" in Luke's infobox, or Han under "spouse" in Leia's. It's the gut-punch of "I am your father" and the emotional havoc it wreaks on poor Luke. It's the sparky dynamic between Han and Leia catching light in a way that's funny and romantic. And it's a food-stealing gremlin waxing lyrical about luminous beams.

 

Whereas Solo is about that information, and not really much more than that.

[BrainFireBob]

Solo flopped. Means fans weren't responsible. That's suits misreading fans, or authors/directors doing so.

 

EDIT: if you tell me you're vegetarian, and I make you dinner, and make you a pork sandwich because i think that's not meat, and you don't like it, I don't get to blame you for my error

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[bluntblade]

I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. My point was never about the financial success or failure of that film, it was about how I think it fails as a piece of storytelling.

[Marshal Rohr]

The distinction between Solo and Empire is a good. Solo was a good movie in the Star Wars universe that would’ve been better if all the characters weren’t tied to the OT, or were peripherally related the way Rogue One did it. Empire was a central part of the Star Wars canon, not just a story about the setting, it was the setting. To tie this into the context of thread, Guy Haley’s books about Guilliman and Cawl, those are Empire. The Black Legion trilogy is Empire. The Siege is Empire. The Night Lords trilogy is Rogue One/Solo. Emperor’s Spears is Rogue One/Solo.

 

 

We’d need access to sales figures to see what does better, but my money is on the fandom at large loving the NL Trilogy over The Great Work.

[BrainFireBob]

I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. My point was never about the financial success or failure of that film, it was about how I think it fails as a piece of storytelling.

Yes, but in context it was the canon fans want- fans didn't generally like Solo. Not a fandom canon demand problem

[Scribe]

Have to admit, I'm confused by this turn of the thread. It would seem to be a literal 'Why not both?' meme.

 

You can still remain true to the canon, and be a great story, and in fact the best stories, the most successful ones, will remain accurate to the canon, while expanding upon the 'why' behind the canon.

 

Not in that it will answer the previously unknown, but by showing the motivations that lead to the state of the story/character/setting itself.

 

This should be especially true within a mythology like 40K, where the setting is a thing, more so than (historically) it was a meta-story.

[Donkey Kong]

Smudboy AND Sargon, at that. Wowee. 

 

Thank you for recognizing my impeccable taste.

 

 

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

 

 

So, what's the call when word of god functionally says it's all headcanon?

 

But I don't think anyone's advocating a book where Horus and the Emperor don't duel. We're concerned, as is the guy in the original article, that fans demanding nothing but canon (a friend once argued that Age of Ultron's "advert" sections like Thor's lightning bath should really have been short films instead, while Star Wars wouldn't be any worse off had Solo been a Wookiepedia article) could be harming storytelling in popular media.

 

This entire conversation feels like a failure in defining terms, and I don't mean whatever delineates "framework," "official canon," "canon," "fanon," "headcanon," and so on because I don't know where to begin sorting that. So, I'll try and introduce my own and see where that gets me, the Story Beats and the In-Universe Rules.

 

Story Beats in this context are the events that happen or the events that we expect to happen based on the stories being adapted. They're the dreaded factoids and bullet point summaries that fill wikis. But, we don't know how they're going to connect, or even if they're going to be respected in this iteration of the story. It probably doesn't help that many of these stories we're talking about now are extrapolated from blurbs in game manuals and art books.

 

We expect that: Horus kills Sanguinius. Horus duels the Emperor. An individual whether it be a guardsman, or an Imperial Fist, or a Custodian attacks Horus. Horus kills said attacker. And the Emperor destroys Hours, body and soul. These are the events that are, for want of a better phrase, "supposed to happen." How many pieces can you move or change before the story is "ruined"? Does it matter if they are?

 

The Story Beat expects Fulgrim to fall to Chaos. Fulgrim was supposed to be convinced by Horus. In this version of the story, Fulgrim gets possessed by a daemon in a sword and has his soul trapped in a painting. But, Fulgrim, in body if not mind, still effectively falls to Chaos. I won't pretend that this story beat is as significant as Horus versus the Emperor, but it should service to make a point. Hitting story beats is ticking boxes on a checklist. I don't think that every box necessarily has to be ticked or in the same order or as expected for a story to be good, since something is always going to be lost or changed in adaptation. Doubly so in 40k where none of it is hard and fast canon anyway. But, that also doesn't put it above a different kind of criticism, I'll come around back to that later.

 

Then there's the established In-Universe Rules that we expect to be followed, and, if we're playing around in the universe, that we follow ourselves. This is what I usually interpret to define canon, but Games Workshop has time and time again demonstrated that these rules don't exist or if they do they're not enforced. In Star Wars, when someone shoots a blaster, I know what I expect to happen. There's going to be an oblong light, usually colored blue or red. Whatever it hits is usually going to die barring the demands of the plot. There's probably going to be smoke, sometimes there'll be a scorch mark wherever the blast hits. I can't say the same for a bolter. Or I can, but it's a tossup on whether or not my expectations are met.

 

If there were a Star Wars movie or book or game or whatever and a character fired a blaster and it shot conventional bullets or a flamethrower then the in universe rules have been broken, my expectations have not been met, and I would feel rightfully confused or upset. This is one of the major criticisms of TLJ, a spaceship isn't a mass driver and hyperspace FTL doesn't work that way. A foundational rule of the universe has been broken for the sake of a pretty scene, the ramifications are massive, and the universe will never be the same again (slight hyperbole). Meanwhile, in 40k, what's a bolter firing supposed to sound like? What's the recoil like? But isn't it supposed to be a gyrojet? Is the ammunition caseless or not? Do bolts explode and if so how big is that explosion supposed to be? I know what I'd like the answers to these questions to be, but I couldn't tell you what they are for each adaptation.

 

Coming back around and further underpinning everything is logic and deductive reasoning. Canon is the In-Universe Rules, a contract between the creator and the consumer that's supposed to help suspend disbelief and bridge the gap our world and this make believe one. Star Wars gives us Hyperspace and The Force in a galaxy far far away. Mass Effect gives us element zero and the ability to manipulate an object's mass. We get more tools to tell stories, but that doesn't take away the tools that we already have. I don't dislike Fulgrim because Fulgrim was possessed by a daemon in an alien sword instead of being seduced by Horus. I dislike Fulgrim because I expect more intelligent decision making from a demigod. There's nothing wrong with expecting the rules to be followed provided that there are rules to follow. I'd call that expecting canon. There's also nothing wrong with expecting a story to be coherent and well put together, and I think that that supersedes hitting Story Beats that may even get in the way of a satisfying story.

[Marshal Rohr]

Bolters haven’t been caseless since like 3rd Edition

[Donkey Kong]

Bolters haven’t been caseless since like 3rd Edition

 

And GW just announced a Zoat and Zoats haven't been a thing since like Rogue Trader. Argument doesn't work.

 

Dawn of War and Ultramarines and Astartes

 

Three samples, two official, one fan made. You cannot tell me with a straight face that all three bolters are representative of the same thing. Not a gotcha, and I don't know if it's the video quality, but funnily enough in the Ultramarines movie clip I see an ejection port but no shell casings. Scratch that, they're there, just difficult to see. Better around the three minute mark.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Donkey Kong

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

Smudboy AND Sargon, at that. Wowee.

Thank you for recognizing my impeccable taste.

 

There's one more element, and that's the accusation of gatekeeping.

 

I don't know if that's generational, but there's a heavy element of "word of God is invalid if ut contradicts my headcannon."

So, what's the call when word of god functionally says it's all headcanon?

 

Long as word of god recognizes blue SMs with an upside-down white omega as Ultramarines, he's not being accurate.

 

Dumbass attitude from the studio.

 

 

But I don't think anyone's advocating a book where Horus and the Emperor don't duel. We're concerned, as is the guy in the original article, that fans demanding nothing but canon (a friend once argued that Age of Ultron's "advert" sections like Thor's lightning bath should really have been short films instead, while Star Wars wouldn't be any worse off had Solo been a Wookiepedia article) could be harming storytelling in popular media.

This entire conversation feels like a failure in defining terms, and I don't mean whatever delineates "framework," "official canon," "canon," "fanon," "headcanon," and so on because I don't know where to begin sorting that. So, I'll try and introduce my own and see where that gets me, the Story Beats and the In-Universe Rules.

 

Story Beats in this context are the events that happen or the events that we expect to happen based on the stories being adapted. They're the dreaded factoids and bullet point summaries that fill wikis. But, we don't know how they're going to connect, or even if they're going to be respected in this iteration of the story. It probably doesn't help that many of these stories we're talking about now are extrapolated from blurbs in game manuals and art books.

 

We expect that: Horus kills Sanguinius. Horus duels the Emperor. An individual whether it be a guardsman, or an Imperial Fist, or a Custodian attacks Horus. Horus kills said attacker. And the Emperor destroys Hours, body and soul. These are the events that are, for want of a better phrase, "supposed to happen." How many pieces can you move or change before the story is "ruined"? Does it matter if they are?

 

The Story Beat expects Fulgrim to fall to Chaos. Fulgrim was supposed to be convinced by Horus. In this version of the story, Fulgrim gets possessed by a daemon in a sword and has his soul trapped in a painting. But, Fulgrim, in body if not mind, still effectively falls to Chaos. I won't pretend that this story beat is as significant as Horus versus the Emperor, but it should service to make a point. Hitting story beats is ticking boxes on a checklist. I don't think that every box necessarily has to be ticked or in the same order or as expected for a story to be good, since something is always going to be lost or changed in adaptation. Doubly so in 40k where none of it is hard and fast canon anyway. But, that also doesn't put it above a different kind of criticism, I'll come around back to that later.

 

Then there's the established In-Universe Rules that we expect to be followed, and, if we're playing around in the universe, that we follow ourselves. This is what I usually interpret to define canon, but Games Workshop has time and time again demonstrated that these rules don't exist or if they do they're not enforced. In Star Wars, when someone shoots a blaster, I know what I expect to happen. There's going to be an oblong light, usually colored blue or red. Whatever it hits is usually going to die barring the demands of the plot. There's probably going to be smoke, sometimes there'll be a scorch mark wherever the blast hits. I can't say the same for a bolter. Or I can, but it's a tossup on whether or not my expectations are met.

 

If there were a Star Wars movie or book or game or whatever and a character fired a blaster and it shot conventional bullets or a flamethrower then the in universe rules have been broken, my expectations have not been met, and I would feel rightfully confused or upset. This is one of the major criticisms of TLJ, a spaceship isn't a mass driver and hyperspace FTL doesn't work that way. A foundational rule of the universe has been broken for the sake of a pretty scene, the ramifications are massive, and the universe will never be the same again (slight hyperbole). Meanwhile, in 40k, what's a bolter firing supposed to sound like? What's the recoil like? But isn't it supposed to be a gyrojet? Is the ammunition caseless or not? Do bolts explode and if so how big is that explosion supposed to be? I know what I'd like the answers to these questions to be, but I couldn't tell you what they are for each adaptation.

 

Coming back around and further underpinning everything is logic and deductive reasoning. Canon is the In-Universe Rules, a contract between the creator and the consumer that's supposed to help suspend disbelief and bridge the gap our world and this make believe one. Star Wars gives us Hyperspace and The Force in a galaxy far far away. Mass Effect gives us element zero and the ability to manipulate an object's mass. We get more tools to tell stories, but that doesn't take away the tools that we already have. I don't dislike Fulgrim because Fulgrim was possessed by a daemon in an alien sword instead of being seduced by Horus. I dislike Fulgrim because I expect more intelligent decision making from a demigod. There's nothing wrong with expecting the rules to be followed provided that there are rules to follow. I'd call that expecting canon. There's also nothing wrong with expecting a story to be coherent and well put together, and I think that that supersedes hitting Story Beats that may even get in the way of a satisfying story.

Yes, but:

 

Fulgrim's possession was *secret.* So the wider galaxy would believe that line. It's a reveal, not a change.

 

I think the issue is requiring twists of authors. That's poor writing.

Edited April 5, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[mc warhammer]

i'm impressed nobody dropped "death of the author" into this whole word-o-god tangent.  literary critique aside, some stuff to think about:

 

authors themselves can and are unreliable narrators. they're human and as prone to miscommunication, poor memory, self censorship, self editing as anyone else. what you get from an interview, dvd commentary or tweet might not be what was in their head at the time of writing.

 

readers are still...y'know...interpreting the word of god. just like they interpreted the original text.

 

when writers refuse to comment on their works or prefer to leave it to the audience...are they intentionally creating an atmosphere where some members of their fanbase are disadvantaged?

 

or when an author is incapable of doing so (say, shakespeare), can we ever say that anyone's subsequent reading is "correct"? what then is the point?

 

tolkein is a great example of someone who retconned his own writing, forgot certain points, changed his mind after publication and straight up admitted to not knowing some of the answers about his own fictional world.

[BrainFireBob]

i'm impressed nobody dropped "death of the author" into this whole word-o-god tangent. literary critique aside, some stuff to think about:

 

authors themselves can and are unreliable narrators. they're human and as prone to miscommunication, poor memory, self censorship, self editing as anyone else. what you get from an interview, dvd commentary or tweet might not be what was in their head at the time of writing.

 

readers are still...y'know...interpreting the word of god. just like they interpreted the original text.

 

when writers refuse to comment on their works or prefer to leave it to the audience...are they intentionally creating an atmosphere where some members of their fanbase are disadvantaged?

 

or when an author is incapable of doing so (say, shakespeare), can we ever say that anyone's subsequent reading is "correct"? what then is the point?

 

tolkein is a great example of someone who retconned his own writing, forgot certain points, changed his mind after publication and straight up admitted to not knowing some of the answers about his own fictional world.

True.