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

[Fedor]

This obsession with canon mindset seems to be manifesting with increasing regularity on the reddit 40k subs recently in the aspect of loads of threads and heated exchanges about how many wins and terrible depictions of their power levels the Xenos factions get and GW/BL's supposed extreme Marine bias in this area. Usually with barely any discussion on any other merits or actual intent of any stories used in these debates, just getting pissed at power levels and who eventually wins.

[Donkey Kong]

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

 

Not to toot my horn too hard, and not in response to this particular tangent, but I brought up death of the author in response to the article OP posted on the second page of this thread.

 

The article OP posted says "there cannot be death of the author, if the author's got their own fandom wiki."So, does authorial intent overrule death of the author if the author unambiguously explains what they meant to say? Or can we still analyze and discuss a work in and of itself and safely ignore another source? Is there a reason we can't have both?

 

Also, when I say word of god says that there's no canon, I'm not quoting any singular author, I'm quoting the former head of Black Library. If it gives it any more weight, ADB has shared the same quote on this board before. Reposting for your convenience.

 

When I say that 40k has no canon, I'm reiterating an official statement.

 

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about “canonical background” will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history…

 

Here’s our standard line: Yes it’s all official, but remember that we’re reporting back from a time where stories aren’t always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

 

Let’s put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex… and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

 

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.

 

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.

 

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

 

It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nuclear war; that nails it for me."

- Marc Gascoigne, former Black Library General Manager

[mc warhammer]

This obsession with canon mindset seems to be manifesting with increasing regularity on the reddit 40k subs recently in the aspect of loads of threads and heated exchanges about how many wins and terrible depictions of their power levels the Xenos factions get and GW/BL's supposed extreme Marine bias in this area. Usually with barely any discussion on any other merits or actual intent of any stories used in these debates, just getting pissed at power levels and who eventually wins.

it doesn't really happen here (thankfully. look at this thread, varied viewpoints and a pretty inclusive discussion of them all) but i 've seen it overtake discussions on a few other forums and social media.

 

it's almost as if it's a badge of authenticity in some circles, with a person's own sense of worth attached to that badge. reminds me a little of that weird comic gate thing where male fans were demanding female fans pass quizzes to prove their right to claim "ascended fanhoodism" or something.

[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:

 

Not to toot my horn too hard, and not in response to this particular tangent, but I brought up death of the author in response to the article OP posted on the second page of this thread.

 

haha, there you go. my bad. barthes is smiling down upon you from above.

 

with the rest of what you mentioned re word of god- and here i go again with my evil distinctions- i think there is a difference between a company higher up stating how their IP runs and an author clarifiying a scene in a novel.

Edited April 6, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Donkey Kong]

 

 

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

 

Not to toot my horn too hard, and not in response to this particular tangent, but I brought up death of the author in response to the article OP posted on the second page of this thread.

haha, there you go. my bad. barthes is smiling down upon you from above.

 

with the rest of what you mentioned re word of god- and here i go again with my evil distinctions- i think there is a difference between a company higher up stating how their IP runs and an author clarifiying a scene in a novel.

 

Oh, I agree completely. And I think that there are merits to both authorial intent and death of the author, wiki or no. But, when we're talking about 40k (or 30k) in general terms, I defer to Gascogne before any individual author.

 

I had a thought. What about the corners of the 40k universe that authors carve out for themselves, Abnett's Sabbat Worlds probably being the best (and quite possibly only*) example. Does Abnett have his own continuity in an otherwise amorphous 40k canon?

 

*The only other author I can think of that attempted something similar is Henry Zou with his Bastion Wars. Otherwise, we'd be talking about authors that have contained, continuous works e.g. ADB's Night Lords and Black Legion, Mitchell's Cain).

[aa.logan]

The Dark Coil of Fehervari and ADB has (I *think*) stated he could do the same with the Veil are equivalents of the Sabbat Worlds

[Roomsky]

I got the impression Hydraphur was that for Farrer, even if we only got 3 books out of it.

[Scribe]

So...I sat down with the family and watched the last Star Wars movie.

 

Full Disclosure.

 

I am not even partially well versed in the setting.

My family does not care about them.

I have read some of the novels, played several of the games, watched the original's until my VHS tapes wore out, the next 3 about twice, the last 3 once, and did not watch Solo or Rogue One.

 

Han Shot First.

 

THAT SAID.

 

Considering I will make no claim to 'know' Star Wars canon, I can appreciate that when you dont know, or care, about really the details of the setting, and you can explain things (to my family) quickly and they can still understand the meaningful parts of the movie...or examine what the message is from episode VIII...there is something to that.

 

I dont know, gives me something think upon.

[bluntblade]

 

 

This obsession with canon mindset seems to be manifesting with increasing regularity on the reddit 40k subs recently in the aspect of loads of threads and heated exchanges about how many wins and terrible depictions of their power levels the Xenos factions get and GW/BL's supposed extreme Marine bias in this area. Usually with barely any discussion on any other merits or actual intent of any stories used in these debates, just getting pissed at power levels and who eventually wins.

it doesn't really happen here (thankfully. look at this thread, varied viewpoints and a pretty inclusive discussion of them all) but i 've seen it overtake discussions on a few other forums and social media.

 

it's almost as if it's a badge of authenticity in some circles, with a person's own sense of worth attached to that badge. reminds me a little of that weird comic gate thing where male fans were demanding female fans pass quizzes to prove their right to claim "ascended fanhoodism" or something.

This is generally what I've seen on the toxicity front.

[Xisor]

 

 

 

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?

That line of reasoning precludes:

- forgetfulness

- terrible understanding of one's own motivations & influences

- perennial lack of self-awareness in Homo Sapiens

- lying/spin

 

"The fish was this big" - every human describing a past event after the second retelling.

 

Human memory, especially when retelling anecdotes, isn't very good.

 

Heavens, I lived with a guy who would literally repeat other peoples' own stories and factlets back at them (after a few minutes/days) as if they were his, with no awareness he was doing it, and him at the centre of the story.

 

(This story itself has probably grown legs, in fairness.)

 

---

 

It's a secondary problem with canon and a drive for it - I've yet to read a good defense of messy canon (and certainly no defense of rigid canon) that isn't an equally good argument for "canon doesn't exist and shouldn't be talked about as a Thing, but we do loosely agree on a lot of details and ideas".

 

On word of God - who here has waxed lyrical to an author about a favourite bit of an older book, only to see them glaze over a bit, because they don't really remember their own work in the way that a reader would? (Especially if they're knee deep in a different, unrelated novel several books removed from the one discussed?)

 

It's pretty strange to see, but also abundantly normal: authors aren't (necessarily) living encyclopedias of their own work, having catalogued out every reason and explanation and motivating detail.

 

Some might be, but I'd certainly not expect it of everyone.

 

(And in criminal justice, we see it plainly: individuals don't have encyclopediac knowledge of their own lives, even [especially?]when they insist that they do. Witness testimony is quite flimsy.)

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

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.

and

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.

The Zoat has nothing to do with the fact bolters haven’t been caseless for over a decade. You can make the argument they used to be caseless but they are not currently depicted as being caseless. GW could change this at any time if they wanted and it has no impact on their IP. Edited April 6, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[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?

That line of reasoning precludes:

- forgetfulness

- terrible understanding of one's own motivations & influences

- perennial lack of self-awareness in Homo Sapiens

- lying/spin

 

"The fish was this big" - every human describing a past event after the second retelling.

 

Human memory, especially when retelling anecdotes, isn't very good.

 

Heavens, I lived with a guy who would literally repeat other peoples' own stories and factlets back at them (after a few minutes/days) as if they were his, with no awareness he was doing it, and him at the centre of the story.

 

(This story itself has probably grown legs, in fairness.)

 

---

 

It's a secondary problem with canon and a drive for it - I've yet to read a good defense of messy canon (and certainly no defense of rigid canon) that isn't an equally good argument for "canon doesn't exist and shouldn't be talked about as a Thing, but we do loosely agree on a lot of details and ideas".

 

On word of God - who here has waxed lyrical to an author about a favourite bit of an older book, only to see them glaze over a bit, because they don't really remember their own work in the way that a reader would? (Especially if they're knee deep in a different, unrelated novel several books removed from the one discussed?)

 

It's pretty strange to see, but also abundantly normal: authors aren't (necessarily) living encyclopedias of their own work, having catalogued out every reason and explanation and motivating detail.

 

Some might be, but I'd certainly not expect it of everyone.

 

(And in criminal justice, we see it plainly: individuals don't have encyclopediac knowledge of their own lives, even [especially?]when they insist that they do. Witness testimony is quite flimsy.)

This is a tempororal proximity issue. Authors can also maintain detailed notes and staffs of content proof readers.

 

Again, this is no reason on the other side for a blanket dismissal of all authors ever at any time.

Edited April 6, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[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.

and

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.

The Zoat has nothing to do with the fact bolters haven’t been caseless for over a decade. You can make the argument they used to be caseless but they are not currently depicted as being caseless. GW could change this at any time if they wanted and it has no impact on their IP.

 

Calling it a change implies that there's a correct. What defines having an "impact on their IP"? Or how big does an addition to the lore have to be to be impactful?

 

The space marines and boltguns in Astartes almost perfectly represent what I imagine those things to be (maybe you disagree with me, and we could have a conversation about that). They're different from the space marines and boltguns in the Dawn of War cinematic and Ultramarines movie, you cannot deny that. But, none of these interpretations are wrong. If there were a canon, at least two of them would be, if not all three. There isn't, so they're not.

 

Again, this is no reason on the other side for a blanket dismissal of all authors ever at any time.

 

Word of god says I can. You can interpret it negatively as dismissing all authors, or you can interpret it positively as empowering you to pick and choose and do as you like. The official authors are not beholden to one another. Why should you be beholden to any one of them?

 

I wish I could find the post here in the thread, but it went something like: The reason that we want a canon is so that what we create will be accepted by our peers. I got into the B&C through the Liber Astartes because I was inspired by Commissar Molotov's Castigators. One of the goals at that time was getting what you created into the Librarium (or at least it was for me), and part of the way you did that was by creating something that conformed to what a space marine chapter was expected to be. We're all aware that the missing primarchs and their legions were created as a gap for you or me or anyone else to fill if they chose to, whether that be Athrawes's Lightning Bearers or Carl and Hecate. A missing legion probably wasn't going to get into the Librarium, but so what?

 

I'd argue that 40k is a theme or tone or mood, not a canon with irrefutable facts. But, the problem there is that theme, tone, and mood are feelings, and feelings are hard to define. Mitchell's Cain series is an official part of the 40k lore, but the tone doesn't feel right to me and I don't think I'd present it as a benchmark for what I think 40k should be. But, I like it anyway, in part because it does feel like a parody.

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

 

 

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.

and

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.

The Zoat has nothing to do with the fact bolters haven’t been caseless for over a decade. You can make the argument they used to be caseless but they are not currently depicted as being caseless. GW could change this at any time if they wanted and it has no impact on their IP.

Calling it a change implies that there's a correct. What defines having an "impact on their IP"? Or how big does an addition to the lore have to be to be impactful?

 

The space marines and boltguns in Astartes almost perfectly represent what I imagine those things to be (maybe you disagree with me, and we could have a conversation about that). They're different from the space marines and boltguns in the Dawn of War cinematic and Ultramarines movie, you cannot deny that. But, none of these interpretations are wrong. If there were a canon, at least two of them would be, if not all three. There isn't, so they're not.

Again, this is no reason on the other side for a blanket dismissal of all authors ever at any time.

Word of god says I can. You can interpret it negatively as dismissing all authors, or you can interpret it positively as empowering you to pick and choose and do as you like. The official authors are not beholden to one another. Why should you be beholden to any one of them?

 

I wish I could find the post here in the thread, but it went something like: The reason that we want a canon is so that what we create will be accepted by our peers. I got into the B&C through the Liber Astartes because I was inspired by Commissar Molotov's Castigators. One of the goals at that time was getting what you created into the Librarium (or at least it was for me), and part of the way you did that was by creating something that conformed to what a space marine chapter was expected to be. We're all aware that the missing primarchs and their legions were created as a gap for you or me or anyone else to fill if they chose to, whether that be Athrawes's Lightning Bearers or Carl and Hecate. A missing legion probably wasn't going to get into the Librarium, but so what?

 

I'd argue that 40k is a theme or tone or mood, not a canon with irrefutable facts. But, the problem there is that theme, tone, and mood are feelings, and feelings are hard to define. Mitchell's Cain series is an official part of the 40k lore, but the tone doesn't feel right to me and I don't think I'd present it as a benchmark for what I think 40k should be. But, I like it anyway, in part because it does feel like a parody.

This is the biggest lack of clarity- my comment was not restricted to 40k. It was regarding Word of God as absolute principle, which implicitly equates official author works to fanfic.

 

40k is looser than LOTR or Harry Potter.

[Donkey Kong]

This is the biggest lack of clarity- my comment was not restricted to 40k. It was regarding Word of God as absolute principle, which implicitly equates official author works to fanfic.

40k is looser than LOTR or Harry Potter.

 

40k is a completely different animal to Lord of The Rings, or Harry Potter, or Star Wars, or Mass Effect, or A Song of Ice and Fire, or The Expanse, or most any other property that you can think of. Again, the only others that that I know about that are similar to 40k are the SCP Foundation (a collection of intertwined creepypastas that came out of an image board), Fallout, The Elder Scrolls C0DA, and Dark Souls the three of which I'm significantly less familiar with.

 

In 40k the official work is fanfic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Phoebus]

I had a thought. What about the corners of the 40k universe that authors carve out for themselves, Abnett's Sabbat Worlds probably being the best (and quite possibly only*) example. Does Abnett have his own continuity in an otherwise amorphous 40k canon?

I think that’s where the fictional universe intersects with real-world considerations. Gascogne’s “rules” are always paramount, but others authors “visiting” the Sabbat Worlds probably do so as part of a venture that requires some coordination and shared creative effort (e.g., an anthology); I imagine they would do Abnett the courtesy of verifying whether a given idea “works” in the corner of the galaxy he’s introduced and the larger narrative he has in mind for it.

[SpAcEGhOsT095]

"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."

"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."

"Valuing the sterile facts of those stories more than the things about them that make us think or feel is a sad thing indeed."

This kind of attitude is what's toxic and has destroyed some very big franchises. Canon? Who cares! It felt good! 

If you don't know anything about a series, it makes it easier for garbage to be shoved into it.

Feelings before setting, how I hate thee.

.......

Then I look at this guy's Twitter.

"Fanboys really wanted TLJ Luke to be the fantasised badass hero of their dreams, but in many ways he was simply their reality: alone, despondent, and snottily yelling about sacred texts"

That's not "toxic" at all.........

 

[bluntblade]

Eh, it's Twitter and both sides are vitriolic on there.

Again, I wish I hated that film, my life would be that bit simpler if I did.

Thing is for me, feelings aren't some minor thing about stories, the emotional impact is what I'm there for. It's the pin-drop silence in a 2,000 capacity theatre at the Holdo Manoeuvre, the realisation during the Fury Road storm that my mouth is hanging open, the moment of horrible epiphany in Logan which punches me square in the heart. If I was just after knowledge I'd be staying home and reading wikis.

Edited April 6, 2020 by bluntblade

[SpAcEGhOsT095]

Eh, it's Twitter and both sides are vitriolic on there.

 

Again, I wish I hated that film, my life would be that bit simpler if I did.

 

Thing is for me, feelings aren't some minor thing about stories, the emotional impact is what I'm there for. It's the pin-drop silence in a 2,000 capacity theatre at the Holdo Manoeuvre, the realisation during the Fury Road storm that my mouth is hanging open, the moment of horrible realisation in Logan which punches me square in the heart. If I was just after knowledge I'd be staying home and reading wikis.

It's not about knowledge gained. It's about how those things affect a setting, both its history and the precedents set. That maneuver retroactively poisoned the setting with its use. Then the next movie had a throw-away line about it being "one in a million" to try and fix the problem it caused.

[bluntblade]

I really don't see why it can't be written off as one immensely situational move which would be prohibitively expensive to pull the rest of the time.

 

Just like how we once had an argument on this forum about why the Imperium doesn't physically drop a battleship on every problem world.

 

But at the end of the day, the dramatic moment resonates with me so hard that in comparison, one broken made-up rule about physics in a setting dominated by a soft magic system doesn't bother me.

 

Edit: Incidentally, I actually recall a scenario in one of the Battlefront Games in which a formation of ships jumping at close-range to the enemy fleet was considered very dangerous for the ships who'd be on the receiving end.

Edited April 6, 2020 by bluntblade

[Roomsky]

And before that spirals into a conversation this forum has danced around 600 times,

 

 

This is a tempororal proximity issue. Authors can also maintain detailed notes and staffs of content proof readers.

Again, this is no reason on the other side for a blanket dismissal of all authors ever at any time.

 

 

There exists situations where one will have access to the text, but not author statements, nor will the text make any indication that such statements exist.

 

An author is free to publish more works supporting their claims, but a reader of books should not be expected to consult other media to complete their understanding / validate their interpretation of the text. 

[DarkChaplain]

Case in point: J.K.Rowling. You'd have to be an avid follower of her social media channels to keep up with all the retcons and bum-pulled info she throws out at a whim / attempts to remain relevant.

 

As for that Holdo scene... I don't even need to talk about it itself, because Holdo, as a character, even accounting for time and experience, is such a massively different thing from the Holdo as presented for the first time in one of the Journey to TLJ novel Princess of Alderaan. I read it months before the movie released, and liked Holdo a damn lot, enough to dismiss criticisms thrown the characters' way leading up to the movie. What she ended up being in the film was just not even consistent with this canon novel they explicitly commissioned and approved as a setup piece for the movie (it also involved Crait, btw).

 

In that sense, the Star Wars sequel trilogy isn't even playing by the rules that LucasFilm/Disney/the Story Group overseeing it established day 1. Consistency, continuity, plot beats, character development, they're all subject to change on a whim, these days, and that's precisely why I stopped consuming SW media, going from near 100% completion of all Disney Canon material to one or two comic issues to finish an arc I was enjoying from a competent author ever since TLJ.

 

To wrap this back to 40k, I would hate it if similar was to happen with this franchise. We've had enough jarring depictions of special characters over the years (the Lion being one prominent and currently doubly relevant example, but there's others, like Abaddon, or Khârn, or Typhon and Mortarion, heck, even Perturabo, to a degree. And Zahariel's 180 in Angels of Caliban? Oh dear...). Avoiding more of that in the future is something I pray for.

 

I'm not really sure if GW/BL still do this today, but there used to be a time when authors would be able to receive supplementary material to read up on factions, characters and histories. I remember Mike Lee talking about this in his foreword to the Time of Legends: Rise of Nagash omnibus. He got a bunch of Tomb Kings lore and stuff about Nagash, to get up to speed. Will it have included every single reference to the character? No, most assuredly not. But it should provide all the major pieces to account for within the canon. Many Black Library authors also make it a habit to read previous material on subjects they're about to tackle, whether because it was their pitch and they've already been passionate about the subject, or because they want to do things right, is irrelevant to the results, I'd say.

 

I'd even go as far as to say that this is how it should be. Reading major works dealing with shared characters should be considered mandatory. When McNeill did not read Ahriman: Unchanged, it resulted in headscratchers for The Crimson King - a book so delayed and rewritten so much throughout McNeill's move to the US etc, it really should not have clashed with a novel dealing with the same subject matter that was released to the public years before his. Authors like Guy Haley and Josh Reynolds show much more diligence with these things, which generally results in works that offer characters at least on par with what's gone before, but most often they also manage to tackle them in such a way that potential conflicts from earlier sources get repaired, resulting in a more nuanced character by the end. Look at how Haley has approached Perturabo, or Curze, and you'll see what I mean. Josh, too, had to deal with a lot of baggage for Fabius, Eidolon and co, yet managed to create a very "Josh" Bile without being jarring when contrasted against ADB's Fabius, or Kyme's, or whoever else touched him throughout the Heresy and 40k. Heck, Haley's Guilliman also springs to mind as a character who had tons of expectations and lore riding on him, but works wonderfully even 10,000 years later, in a to him unfamiliar setting.

 

To me, this compromise is far more satisfying to see succeed and do well within the author's own plot ideas than them just taking the character, ignoring potential conflicts, and just making them be super awesome and putting the God-Emperor in a golden wheelchair before flipping off Malal. This level of consistency and diligence that authors like Josh and Haley bring to the table makes me respect their works all the more, and I have never seen it as a detriment to the quality of their works - the opposite, really. It's a sign of respect to the audience, the IP and a huge show of skill, even before all is said and done.

[bluntblade]

And before that spirals into a conversation this forum has danced around 600 times,

 

 

This is a tempororal proximity issue. Authors can also maintain detailed notes and staffs of content proof readers.

 

Again, this is no reason on the other side for a blanket dismissal of all authors ever at any time.

 

 

There exists situations where one will have access to the text, but not author statements, nor will the text make any indication that such statements exist.

 

An author is free to publish more works supporting their claims, but a reader of books should not be expected to consult other media to complete their understanding / validate their interpretation of the text. 

I increasingly feel that in most stories, it shouldn't be necessary to have weeks' worth of author comments to actually make clear what really happened. In the highest-profile recent example, I found that the "clarifications" just bounced off the impression that the film had created in my head.

[Roomsky]

As for that Holdo scene... 

 

Damnit DC.

 

But I generally agree with your sentiments. It actually boggles my mind that reading every HH entry up to the book they're writing hasn't been required for every author on the team from the beginning. Why is it only now, at the Siege, they had them do this? Mcneill himself stated in one of the False Gods afterwords that he had planned to write Horus as much more of an unrestrained :cuss until he read Horus Rising. That alone should have demonstrated from the beginning that should be necessary.

[bluntblade]

I'm in the same boat - I think in that broad instance you're off (though in the specific instance I only know that character from the film), but Mortarion's character swings pain me (and come without the cushion of intervening decades in which change can occur). As opposed to Shiban's change, which makes sense to me despite being jarring to start with.

 

My feelings that the Horus Rising to False Gods transition saw every character docked several IQ points and at least one dimension are pretty well documented as is.