The unreliable narrator / deconstructing canon (T Pirinen)

[Bryan Blaire]

Adeptus, you believe in some weird version of 40K where you are as authoritative as the creators (something that is even recognized [possibly as a drawback] in the theory you are espousing as having meaning here), and it devalues the creativity of anyone creating. You do you, man, seems like this is all played out.

 

Canon is all official, authoritative GW created works, not anything that random people have dreamed up or applied theories to because they critique but don't produce themselves.

 

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

 

Once again, getting back to the original topic - I would agree that it would be nice to have more stated unreliable narration in the general settings writings, simply due to the widening of viewpoints it could bring with it within the bounds of canon. Simply showing that different populations of different worlds/sectors have different versions of the same event due to how they have heard of that event could provide interesting insight to methods of communication beyond astropathic contact.

[Adeptus]

Adeptus, you believe in some weird version of 40K where you are as authoritative as the creators

Yes! And so are you, and anyone else that spends the time and energy to critique the text in a meaningful way!

 

Canon is all official, authoritative GW created works, not anything that random people have dreamed up or applied theories to because they critique but don't produce themselves.

Yes, everything published by GW is canon. And none of it is.

 

[Scribe]

No, thats not how this works.

 

Its canon, until it isnt.

[Adeptus]

No, thats not how this works.

 

Its canon, until it isnt.

No, that's not how canon works. All canon requires interpretation by the reader.

 

EDIT: Canon, especially in shared universes, is a very intricate concept. It deals with truth, which is inherently subjective, and facts which are inevitably mutable. ADB back on page one states that 40K doesn't have a canon in the traditional sense.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Adeptus

[Scribe]

Nope. The Emperor existed.

 

Canonical, not up for interpretation.

 

The Chaos Gods also exist. The Warp exists. The Webway exists. The Eldar exist, and the Fall happened.

 

You are not correct, and no amount of armchair psycho-babble is going to convince me otherwise.

 

There is canon, and there is interpretation of the events which are part of said canon.

 

Canon however, exists in this setting. 

 

EDIT: And an appeal to the authority of a man I admire deeply isnt going to change the fact that the Emperor existed, and started the Great Crusade, and fell to Horus.

 

:p

Edited September 12, 2017 by Scribe

[Adeptus]

Nope. The Emperor existed.

 

Canonical, not up for interpretation.

 

The Chaos Gods also exist. The Warp exists. The Webway exists. The Eldar exist, and the Fall happened.

 

You are not correct, and no amount of armchair psycho-babble is going to convince me otherwise.

 

There is canon, and there is interpretation of the events which are part of said canon.

 

Canon however, exists in this setting. 

 

EDIT: And an appeal to the authority of a man I admire deeply isnt going to change the fact that the Emperor existed, and started the Great Crusade, and fell to Horus.

 

I respect your position, but Everything is up for interpretation. You don't have to participate of course!

 

To further return to ADB's posts on this thread:

 

"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." - Marc Gascoigne

[Scribe]

Sure. I'm not saying that Regiment X was on Planet Y, 100% and its undeniable because its in the 4th Edition Guard codex, mentioned in a corner of a page.

 

I'm saying the building blocks of the setting happened. The large constructs upon which the setting is built. Emperor. Chaos. Warp. 

 

I mean we can agree to disagree, but anyone saying the Emperor didnt exist gets a spot on my ignore list going forward. :p

[Adeptus]

But WHY are you so certain they happened?

 

EDIT: At the risk of going out on a limb, I'll continue rather than wait for a response.

 

You're certain those things happened because that's how you interpret the text.

 

I'm not here to try and tell you there is no Emperor (although the possibility remains!) what I'm trying to get across is that when you read something, you need to interpret it. It's often pretty straightforward when it comes to GW literature, and some things (as you've noted) have been interpreted and discussed repeatedly over the decades so that we have a fairly concrete understanding of them. But the process remains important, and the process is always open ended. The book is never finished, the case never closed. Obviously disproving the Emperor's existance would be a truly herculean task, it's not something even worth focusing on except to highlight the process of taking the produced work, filtering it through our brains, and discussing it with our peers and deciding how it all fits together. It's a process that needs to be applied to everything we read.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Adeptus

[Ascanius]

Mandia are you agreeing or disagreeing? If disagreeing, let me say what I meant in other words. If as a historian I say something or start by reading a primary document as "false" I am in the 'wrong' (according to one view). I have been taught to read and/or look at everything as "True". Or atleast the author who wrote it believed it was true.

 

I'm more expanding, but I cut off the quote here because . . . well, sometimes, as with anything, it's not so much "believes is true" as "wishes to persuade others is true". A lot of histories have been written with the aim of promoting an agenda.

 

You may have seen the photo of two American soldiers holding a third man between them. One has his rifle at the man's head. The other is holding a bottle of water to the man's lips. It's often used as an example of how you can frame the truth to suit your agenda, because you can crop the picture so that you only see the American soldier with his weapon aimed at a civilian prisoner . . . or you can crop it so that you only see the American soldier trying to give a civilian something to drink . . . or you can show the whole original image that seems to suggest that both things are true.

 

All history is like that, to a greater or lesser degree, because even if you don't actively choose to emphasise the sources of information that support a deliberate agenda you want to promote, you can't help but shape your work simply by what you focus on due to your interests, biases, and preferences. The questions you seek to answer can themselves shape the answer. The ideas of your time and place inform how you interpret the evidence you uncover.

 

It's the same thing with the background material and fiction of 40K. I think the story of the Emperor is about the irony of a being whose colossal arrogance led him to believe he could shape the entire species to fit his vision of what they should be, but who only ensured 10,000 years of torment for himself and misery for the countless hordes shackled to the insane edifice built on the ashes of his dream. A large part of why I feel that way is because I don't think that the Emperor's goal justified the enslavement of humanity and the horrors of conquest and totalitarianism he unleashed upon the galaxy even before his dream burned.

 

Other people don't share my horror of what the Emperor was trying to achieve, and so they see his story as a tragedy, a passion play of last-ditch sacrifice to preserve the species from eternal darkness. Someone who thinks the Emperor was fundamentally right to launch the Great Crusade and mourns its failure isn't going to see the setting the same way as I do. We can read the same words and take different things from them. They might see the heroic warriors fighting for a cause greater than themselves where I see warriors shaped into the tools of oppression.

[Scribe]

But WHY are you so certain they happened?

Seriously? Because water is wet.

 

I'm not going to continue at this point. :)

[Adeptus]

 

But WHY are you so certain they happened?

Seriously? Because water is wet.

 

I'm not going to continue at this point.

 

 

But WHY are you so certain they happened?

Seriously? Because water is wet.

 

I'm not going to continue at this point.

 

I edited my post while you were responding:

 

You're certain those things happened because that's how you interpret the text.

 

I'm not here to try and tell you there is no Emperor (although the possibility remains!) what I'm trying to get across is that when you read something, you need to interpret it. It's often pretty straightforward when it comes to GW literature, and some things (as you've noted) have been interpreted and discussed repeatedly over the decades so that we have a fairly concrete understanding of them. But the process remains important, and the process is always open ended. The book is never finished, the case never closed. Obviously disproving the Emperor's existance would be a truly herculean task, it's not something even worth focusing on except to highlight the process of taking the produced work, filtering it through our brains, and discussing it with our peers and deciding how it all fits together. It's a process that needs to be applied to everything we read.

[Antarius]

Well, obviously, there's no way to read a text without interpreting it.

 

Language is a strange thing, because it's ambiguous and, as you quite correctly noted requires interpretation by it's very nature - incidentally, this is probably a big part of why poetry exists and why language can fire up our imagination and emotions.
 

But on the other hand, language is not "just" ambiguous, since we do in fact agree what specific words and sequences of words mean, at least to some extent; there are many circumstances where one interpretation really IS the "right" interpretation (or, at the very minimum the only interpretation that we can reasonably accept as right). However, most situations involving language are obviously at least somewhat up for debate as to what interpretations make sense - or which one makes the most sense.

Disagreements over interpretations of language usually revolve around the meaning of language and what interpretations are "best" (and interesting discussions invariably revolve around why one interpretation can be said to be better). So yes, interpretation of language is to a large degree subjective.

 

That's not the same as there being no more or less valid interpretations, however. If you ask me "did the Emperor exist" and I answer "yes, obviously" you're free to interpret my stance as "Antarius doesn't believe that the Emperor exists", but I think we can agree that it's not exactly a good interpretation of what I wrote.

I think you're falling into the trap of reading "things are up for interpretation" as "all interpretations are equally valid". Because, while I absolutely adore AD-B and his piece on 40K canon, I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that some things are actual (well, ficitional really) facts in 40K.

 

To continue with our example, the Emperor did exist and was a supremely powerful figure - that's a canonical fact that any reasonable reader of 40K must accept. Heretics within the 40K universe might dispute it and that might make for interesting stories, but as of now the Emeror's existence is canonical fact, even if 40K has a looser canon than most other fictional universes.

Now, whether the Emperor was a loving father or a huge jerk is obviously up for debate and there might be several good arguments for either, both in- and out-universe. For example, the Night Lords might be right when it comes to the character and actions of the Emperor or they might be wrong and it's really impossible to say with any sort of definite authority.  This is a perfect example of 40Ks looser take on canon, but that's a far cry from e.g. the Emperor's existence being up for (reasonable) debate.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Antarius

[Adeptus]

Well, obviously, there's no way to read a text without interpreting it.

 

Language is a strange thing, because it's ambiguous and, as you quite correctly noted requires interpretation by it's very nature - incidentally, this is probably a big part of why poetry exists and why language can fire up our imagination and emotions.

 

But on the other hand, language is not "just" ambiguous, since we do in fact agree what specific words and sequences of words mean, at least to some extent; there are many circumstances where one interpretation really IS the "right" interpretation (or, at the very minimum the only interpretation that we can reasonably accept as right). However, most situations involving language are obviously at least somewhat up for debate as to what interpretations make sense - or which one makes the most sense.

Disagreements over interpretations of language usually revolve around the meaning of language and what interpretations are "best" (and interesting discussions invariably revolve around why one interpretation can be said to be better). So yes, interpretation of language is to a large degree subjective.

 

That's not the same as there being no more or less valid interpretations, however. If you ask me "did the Emperor exist" and I answer "yes, obviously" you're free to interpret my stance as "Antarius doesn't believe that the Emperor exists", but I think we can agree that it's not exactly a good interpretation of what I wrote.

 

I think you're falling into the trap of reading "things are up for interpretation" as "all interpretations are equally valid". Because, while I absolutely adore AD-B and his piece on 40K canon, I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that some things are actual (well, ficitional really) facts in 40K.

 

To continue with our example, the Emperor did exist and was a supremely powerful figure - that's a canonical fact that any reasonable reader of 40K must accept. Heretics within the 40K universe might dispute it and that might make for interesting stories, but as of now the Emeror's existence is canonical fact, even if 40K has a looser canon than most other fictional universes.

Now, whether the Emperor was a loving father or a huge jerk is obviously up for debate and there might be several good arguments for either, both in- and out-universe. For example, the Night Lords might be right when it comes to the character and actions of the Emperor or they might be wrong and it's really impossible to say with any sort of definite authority.  This is a perfect example of 40Ks looser take on canon, but that's a far cry from e.g. the Emperor's existence being up for (reasonable) debate.

I agree with just about everything you've said here except I just want to clarify that I certainly don't think all interpretations of anything are valid, just that there is almost always room for multiple interpretations, and that this absolutely needs to be in the front of our minds when we're reading 40K litertature.

[gideon stargreave]

This has back and forthed enough for me to ask a question, but I need to frame it properly.

 

Why is the existence of Definitive Uber Canon important?

We have a setting that is defined by the ability of the users to share in its creation (a chapter, a warzone, a chaos :cusslord of Slaanesh or whatever)
We have ten thousand years (minimum) or intrigue and power play and war
We have enormous archetypical stories involving the whole galaxy (war in heaven)

Now, from all of the written GW sources for the last grognard's lifespan, you can cobble together bits and pieces, mixed with your own interpretation and fiddling digits.

Also, to go back to one of the "absolute truths" we had earlier:

Canon: Sources say that the emperor is on the golden throne, sources say he existed.
Interpretation: The emperor is on the golden throne,  he existed.

To address the point on the artist versus the reader and their responsibilities and prerogatives, Joyce often talked about revelation versus meaning. He said that he produced revelation and it was the role of the consumer to provide meaning (or not).

In conclusion, debating the historicity (like in much of mythography and theology) seems insignificant when you consider the literary functions of the stories. In the same way that is unimportant whether or not Achilles existed when put into consideration against the symbolism of the Illiad story

[Brother Sefiel]

Hi
 

 

Canon: Sources say that the emperor is on the golden throne, sources say he existed.
Interpretation: The emperor is on the golden throne,  he existed.

After considering these ideas last night, I've been seriously thinking about the possibility that the Emperor was not real.

I've previously looked at him as the ultimate expression of heroism in the setting in terms of spending 10000 years as a prisoner, serving humanity (it's one of the reasons that I loathed the primarchs being added in, as their antics eclipse his in some ways). Now it just seems so much more obvious that the mythos around him has been invented too, for the exact same reasons as the "war in heaven" stuff might have been (and because a lot of what GW have written just doesn't appeal in any way).

Cheers for the inspiration, guys!

[OnboardG1]

The Emperor doesn't exist, Horus did nothing wrong and promethium doesn't melt steel beams. Wake up sheeple!

 

(I'm now genuinely interested in everyday 40k conspiracy theories, which are guaranteed to be less intricate than the actual conspiracies)

Edited September 12, 2017 by OnboardG1

[Arkangilos]

Seriously guys, I think you are taking ADB's statements about everything and nothing too far. Half truths are still "truths", even if only half way so. The building blocks of the universe ARE there. They are undeniable facts of the universe. The Emperor is on the Golden Thone is a truth. What the throne is? Besides a life support, it could be any number of things. Based on what we have right now, from an "unreliable" (although I wouldn't say it's too unreliable) narrator, it's also a gateway control mechanism. Why do I say it's not unreliable? Consider the source. The characters in Master of Man aren't liars. They don't make stuff up. They know what the machine does because they have seen it.

 

So what's the half truth in those stories? The half truth (and this is coming from ADB's discussions about the book) are how the characters think the Emperor views the Primarchs. To them, the Emperor sees them as numbered tools. But why? And why can we not take this at face value? Because the characters interpret the Emperor's will in their own ways based on psychic communications. In that sense we cannot rely on their own, personal interpretation of who the Emperor is or how he sees his creations.

 

However, we know that he is there, we know his body guards think they are better, and we know the webway war is happening.

 

You cannot discount EVERYTHING as unreliable because enough evidence supports its existence. You can question the validity of interpretations of it (as shown in the example), but not its existence. That's why the narrator is unreliable, not because something didn't happen (it did), but because they interpreted it wrong. That's why it's a half TRUTH.

 

Everything I listed before:

The codex exists (even in book format)

The Primarchs

The Horus Heresy

Sanguinius died by Horus

Etc.

Are the undeniable truths of the setting. The half truths are the narrators point of views, their beliefs, and even their possible accounts of HOW all that went down. It's the details, the small things that are where it comes into play.

[Servant of Dante]

The point is it's fiction, so as far as I'm concerned there's no reason to get up in arms if someone wants to interpret in an unconventional way. I mean, the "undeniable truth" is that every GW publication says the Emperor is on the Golden Throne. Whether or not you take GW's word as gospel or decide to play around with seeing everything as a lie is entirely up to you, even if the vast majority of the readership (including me) do in fact take GW's word that the Emperor is on the Golden Throne.

 

So yes, if you first define that you're trying to build a sensible, mutually agreeable universe using GW's publications (which is I think the default assumption when discussing ANY fiction) then it would be a bit off point to argue the Enperor is not on the golden throne.

 

But if someone wants to interpret every single reference to the emperor as propaganda or myth, well that's a different approach to GW's publications.

 

I suppose at this point my view is that this kind of argument about whether or not there's a canon and if so what that canon is is just tiring. I can't say I even care anymore :P

[Lexington]

Canon is whatever you can get away with.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I'm just happy people started spelling "canon" properly for the last couple of pages.... 

[Rik Lightstar]

I'm just happy people started spelling "canon" properly for the last couple of pages....

Little victories are the best anyone us likely to get from this thread.

 

Rik