Warhammer 40K's canon : Truth & Facts
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:52 am
OK. There's a thread at SBC wherein a quotation from a top head of the publishing business branch was posted, and it sounded rather different than the usual talk about all is canon and malleable. The original material was presented at DakkaDakka.
Aside from IvanTih's claim about 40K's canon (IvanTih is the bloke who ran at 40K websites such as DakkaDakka to spam Connor calcs all over the board until everyone digests them).
The original message:
The point of confusion hinges on the definition of canonical and how it was used there, and the fact that a segment of material was identified as the only canonical source.
Had the sentence stopped there, a lot of published books would actually be apocrypha, but it seems that Mann uses the term canon only to established a hierarchy of acceptable sources: books remain acceptable in establishing facts, but in case of any contradiction between a novel and a rulebook, the rulebook's facts supersede those of the novel.
Others will say that on the contrary, the books can't be canonical or even some form of canon as well if they're said not to be canon at all, no matter why they don't have that status.
But then, looking at GV and ADB's positions on such material, it becomes absolutely clear that BL books are only used for inspiration, and nothing of what they say shall be treated as fact.
That, in fact, smells a lot like the issue regarding canon in Star Wars.
Perhaps Lynata's following words really put it down in a clear manner:
Changed title from "More on Warhammer 40,000's canon" to "Warhammer 40000's canon : Truth & Facts"
Aside from IvanTih's claim about 40K's canon (IvanTih is the bloke who ran at 40K websites such as DakkaDakka to spam Connor calcs all over the board until everyone digests them).
The original message:
Depending on how you understand it, it may or may not make BL books apocrypha, but it undoubtedly puts rulebooks, codices, army books and similar materials above BL books.Lynata wrote: "Everything" cannot be canon, for that's like saying "yes" and "no" are both true - or that Tau have hooves (actual GW minis) as well as feet ("Xenology"). Where contradictions arise, one source is obviously either wrong or supersedes the other. George Mann - the Head of Publishing - has made it a little bit clearer than Marc Gascogne, who is "just" an author. The following is from the 2008 GW Annual Meeting, where he was confronted with this very question:
In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work.
This essentially mirrors what Gav Thorpe and Aaron Dembski-Bowden have mentioned on their blogs. The latter actually clearly stated he doesn't care what some other novel author writes if he thinks it's crap, as BL does give him the freedom to simply disregard it.
http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdar ... ose-canon/
Which is exactly what Gav wrote about GW sometimes adopting novel aspects they like, but not actually feeling in any way bound to do so.
http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/ ... the-fence/
I have to add that - for many years! - I too thought that Black Library stuff was as canon as GW books. It was not until I noticed more and more contradictions, some of whom even go against the very spirit of an army, popped up that I actually went to investigate this further, looking for insider statements such as the ones mentioned above. Now I can rest easy, knowing that certain BL slip-ups can be ignored, whilst I'll still take inspiration from things that sounds like they'd fit.
The point of confusion hinges on the definition of canonical and how it was used there, and the fact that a segment of material was identified as the only canonical source.
Had the sentence stopped there, a lot of published books would actually be apocrypha, but it seems that Mann uses the term canon only to established a hierarchy of acceptable sources: books remain acceptable in establishing facts, but in case of any contradiction between a novel and a rulebook, the rulebook's facts supersede those of the novel.
Others will say that on the contrary, the books can't be canonical or even some form of canon as well if they're said not to be canon at all, no matter why they don't have that status.
But then, looking at GV and ADB's positions on such material, it becomes absolutely clear that BL books are only used for inspiration, and nothing of what they say shall be treated as fact.
Certainly not canon.Gav Thorpe wrote:On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books.
That's more like the usual all is canon blurry line hamies were used to. But it is revealed that it was partly incomplete, say incorrect, and now clearly invalidated by George Mann's words, head of publishing. The trouble being that Mann's words are not directly provided by a verifiable source, but of hearsay nature, even if apparently the messenger is very reliable.Marc Gascoigne - Publisher @ The Black Library and Black Flame wrote:
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.
That, in fact, smells a lot like the issue regarding canon in Star Wars.
Perhaps Lynata's following words really put it down in a clear manner:
That's the crux of it. It is not said that BL books can create any form of canon or subcanon. They're just not identified as canon when it comes to knowing which facts are correct, and Aaron and Thorpe really emphasize a lot on how there's absolutely no need to conform to any material present in BL books. That is the trademark of material that has no quality of canon whatsoever.Lynata wrote: [Talking to IvanTih]
Also, the quote actually says far more than that. It also confirms what Aaron wrote in his blog about BL authors not having to care in the slightest what another BL author has written. An artistic freedom he does make use of when writing his novels.
This leaves us with the following chain of facts:
- BL novels cannot "create canon" as another author is perfectly free to write the exact opposite in the very next book
- when BL novels cannot create canon, all they can do is use canon from GW material
- so when said BL novel states something that is in conflict with said GW material ... where is it from? if it's not from GW, it obviously cannot be canon, q.e.d.
But I also recommend you give those two blogs a read. It's very interesting to read how this issue is explained by the people who actually work with this stuff on a professional basis.
Changed title from "More on Warhammer 40,000's canon" to "Warhammer 40000's canon : Truth & Facts"