PDA

View Full Version : Canon and truth in-universe



Kahoolin
05-10-2010, 09:51 PM
Another thread has got me thinking about fluff discussions and consistency. Firstly a warning, this has turned into a freaking essay and it could get a bit heavy, but hopefully some of you will find it interesting! I'm going to refer to 40k but what I'm going to say is just as applicable to Fantasy or any fictional world really.

All of us who enjoy GW universes eventually realize that there are a lot of things that don't match up. Most likely this is because of various editions, writers, and the lack of a central control ensuring that it all makes sense. People get into endless debates about what is canon and what isn't, and the levels of truth of various canon sources.

I think I may have solved this age old problem :cool:. The twists people get into are the result of what is called a "category mistake" in philosophy. Essentially this means a problem is created when someone uses the wrong approach to analyze something. Here's how I think it relates:

GW's (or any) fictional universe can be approached in one of two ways. You can either pretend to yourself that it's a real universe (suspend disbelief) and discuss it in that spirit, or you can approach it as though it is fiction, written by a bunch of creators in the real world. Let's call this second approach "fictional analysis". I think most disagreements about canonicity in GW fluff discussions are category errors, where the people discussing get confused as to whether they are suspending their disbelief or doing fictional analysis.

When we are suspending our disbelief we pretend that the 40k universe is real and that GW sources are making claims just like history books in the real world. This means that within the context of the universe any claim (whether from the latest codex or some Rogue Trader era White Dwarf weirdness) might be true or might not be, and the only way we can "find out" is by doing what real historians do: Find other sources and compare, examine the motives and reliability of the witness, or speculate based on other knowledge or common sense. After all, not everything written in history books in the real world is true. It's possible none of it is ;)

OTOH, if we are doing fictional analysis (discussing the universe from our perspective of knowing it is a created work) then all we can do is discover sources. We can't make any judgement about whether or not an event described in a source "happened" or not in the 40k universe, as when you're doing fictional analysis you already know none of it happened. Fictional analysis is where canonicity comes in. It is possible to claim that a particular piece of background is not canon, which just means it should not be included as part of the overall work of fiction that is 40k. So you can't have various levels of canon - something either is canon or isn't, and whether it is or not is based on some real-world criteria you are applying. For example, you could say that only stuff written by the original creators is canon, or only stuff with the official GW logo on it is canon, etc. It doesn't really matter how you decide, because all that deciding something is canon does is allow it to be used as evidence in a "historical" discussion from an in-universe point of view.

This is where it gets confusing and this I think is where people often make the category mistake:

Canonicity has no relation to truth in-universe.

That's right, whether a piece of work is accepted as a legitimate piece of GW canon means absolutely nothing in terms of its truth or falsity within the GW universe. Likewise, whether or not something is true or false in-universe has no effect on whether or not it is canon.

Hopefully an example can help. Consider the following statements:

S1: X isn't canon therefore it didn't happen in-universe.
S2: Y is canon therefore it did happen in-universe.

S1 is true. If something is not canon it is not a legitimate part of GW's fictional work and therefore cannot be used as evidence in discussions where we suspend our disbelief and treat 40k lore as history.

S2 contains a category mistake. Just because something IS canon doesn't mean it happened in-universe. It simply means it has been provided to us by the creators to consider when we suspend our disbelief and treat 40k lore as history. The category mistake is confusing canonicity (from the fictional analysis approach) with truth in-universe (from the suspension of disbelief approach).

I think realizing this category mistake also resolves the problem many fluff discussions have over the "levels" of canon. For example, it's pretty common to see people arguing something like "yeah, well that fluff comes from a 2nd ed codex, and even though GW wrote it it must be wrong because the 5th ed codex contradicts it."

This is a mistake that assumes that canon comes in various levels of reliability, and some canon trumps other canon in terms of truth in-universe. Once we realize that whether something happened or not in-universe has nothing to do with canonicity, the problem disappears. A 2nd ed codex and a 5th ed codex are both canon (unless GW puts out a statement saying one or the other is not), but that doesn't mean they have any relationship to truth in-universe. They might both be lies, in-universe. It's up to us to decide truth in-universe, by taking off our fictional analysis hats and forgetting about canon, and putting on our suspension of disbelief pants and treating our fluff as historical sources, with all that that entails.

Whew. That was a big one!

Faultie
05-10-2010, 10:01 PM
If it's not canon, it's not true.
If it is canon, it still can be not true, and cannot be proven true.
There is no truth. If it's not in the canon, it's not true. But what is in the canon that contradicts non-canonical non-truth may itself be false, and therefore it cannot be proven that either is true or false.
If we reject all canon as false, then there is nothing in the canon, and so nothing is true.

I love it.

I think your confusion, Kahoolin, comes from the misunderstanding of the word "canon", or the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study. You seem, however, to be confusing canon with the historical record of the 40k universe. These two are not the same. Canon is handed down by an authoritative body, an arbiter of what is an isn't, and generally only exists in fictional worlds and religions (no jokes, please). The principle is that what is within the canonical tomes is truth, and can't be reasoned away. You may think, historically, that perhaps the Siege of Jericho went down a little differently than just marching and praying, but canonically that is exactly what happened. In terms of 40k, or any fiction setting, there is canon because the author(s)/IP owners say "this is what happened". You may disagree, historically, but you cannot prove their canon wrong. You must suspend disbelief.


It's up to us to decide truth in-universe, by taking off our fictional analysis hats and forgetting about canon, and putting on our suspension of disbelief pants and treating our fluff as historical sources, with all that that entails.This is actually a strange conclusion for your post, considering that the catalyst for the mini-article (ok, not so mini) was a discussion about how "realistically" there had to be way more than 10,000 IG, and it doesn't "make sense" otherwise. Suspension of disbelief, in this case (and, sadly, many others in the 40k universe) actually lies in believing what GW writes is true (in-universe).

person person
05-10-2010, 10:07 PM
Makes sense (on the most basic level) to me!

I think I usually suspend disbelief when it comes to fluff.

Melissia
05-10-2010, 10:37 PM
I suspend disbelief when the fluff is enjoyable.

The Ciaphas Cain series comes to mind. Several breaks from canon, but still quite well written.

Inquisitor Soren
05-10-2010, 10:46 PM
I'm gonna say I would rather Suspend Belief. As a roleplayer I enjoy that much more than simple 'Fictional Analysis'.

Breaking from 'Cannon' I feel is almost Cannon in and of itself in the 40k 'verse. There are no truths, but every lie has a grain of truth somewhere hidden within. Who knows who is actually the 'Good Guy' in 40k? For all we know Horus is actually on the throne and no one ever bothered to notice. Maybe the Heresy was actually a righteous rebellion that was later twisted and converted into a tale of lies instead?! That is why I love 40k, Cannon? What frakin' Cannon...

Kahoolin
05-10-2010, 10:56 PM
It's important to remember though that you need both, and fictional analysis comes first. You have to know what you consider to be canon (or not) so that you can then suspend your disbelief and talk about it as if it's real.

The problem comes when you let fictional analysis and suspension of disbelief become confused. Basically, an event can't be proven true in-universe by being declared canonical. If it could, then two conflicting canonical fluff sources would be impossible to explain in-universe (though easy to explain in real-world terms). What counts as canon is something determined solely by real-world factors. Canon has the function of providing the framework for in-universe discussion by giving us evidence, but can't be used to prove the truth of events in-universe.

Fictional Analysis decides what is canon.
Suspension of Disbelief followed by historical analysis of canon decides what is true in-universe.

Thinking that canonicity decides truth in universe directly messes everything up beyond repair :D

Edit: I'll stop editing now! I promise...

Melissia
05-10-2010, 11:51 PM
... Canon is spelled with one N, Inquisitor Soren :P

Paul
05-11-2010, 01:06 AM
... Canon is spelled with one N, Inquisitor Soren :P

Normally, it's spelled with two. But in this particular case and with this specific meaning, it's one.

Nabterayl
05-11-2010, 01:42 AM
Fictional Analysis decides what is canon.
Suspension of Disbelief followed by historical analysis of canon decides what is true in-universe.

Man, QFT. QFT.

eldargal
05-11-2010, 02:48 AM
No, actually. They are two different words. Cannon refers primarily to artillery (cannon is also the plural). Canon refers to a set of rules or principles, in the context of fluff canon is all the fluff which can be regarded as official. Effectively the principles governing the 40k universe, or any other fictional setting.


Normally, it's spelled with two. But in this particular case and with this specific meaning, it's one.

Faultie
05-11-2010, 08:06 AM
I prefer the type with 2 'n's.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 08:22 AM
Normally, it's spelled with two. But in this particular case and with this specific meaning, it's one.

No, "Canon", "the set of all canonical material in the fiction's universe", is spelled with one N. Always.

"Cannon", meaning "a large gun on a tank", "an artillery piece", etc, is spelled with two.

They are two completely different words. Do not try and claim that Canon is normally spelled with two Ns, because it is not. Cannon is, but Canon isn't. That's like trying to claim that you normally should spell "water", the layman's term for the molecule H2O, "Waiter". No, you should not.




... anyway, where were we....

Gotthammer
05-11-2010, 09:36 AM
Canon has two Ns, cannon has three.

Just sayin'...

;)

david5th
05-11-2010, 09:54 AM
Canon has two Ns, cannon has three.

Just sayin'...

;)

Correct.:)

Inquisitor Soren
05-11-2010, 10:09 AM
I make a typo at 12am and we now have more posts about spelling than we do about the original topic. *facepalm* Alright Mel you get the award for epic topic derail. Besides I think I would rather have a Cannon at this point... =p

I'd like to move the discussion on towards 'Canon' in the 40k 'verse. What does each person consider 'Canon' and what piece(s) of fluff would they personally disregard in the 'Canon'. What is each persons view on the several major events that could be disputed?

I personally like to think that it was the Lion who fell rather than Luther. I haven't finished the Heresy Books on them, as they are floating in Limbo at the moment, but the Lion always feels -to- secretive, far to withdrawn from everyone else. And with a temper that swings from happy to rawgh faster than I thought was normal for a supposedly cool headed warrior. He seems to regard his 'friends' at arms length at best, even his close advisers. He was obviously an extremely troubled man, but even when he met with the Emperor he seemed distant at best in the books. He seems to know Horus' plan intimately and he is able to move to thwart his concept to have a Forge World flip while the Dark Angels are there with a well timed and deployed squad of warriors led by his adviser an Chaplin.

At the very least I feel that Horus may have approached the Lion and offered him a place in the new Regime, but he simply left and never gave an answer. We know he is a master strategist but from the reading he knew how Horus would move and deliberately moves to counter him while leaving the majority of his forces to continue a campaign in the Halo Stars. He refuses to commit his Legion to the war but he himself moves to do battle this seems really odd to me...

Okay that is it for me, I obviously regard the Lion as person who knew at the least and a true traitor at worst. =p

Kahoolin
05-11-2010, 10:22 AM
I think your confusion, Kahoolin, comes from the misunderstanding of the word "canon", or the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study. You seem, however, to be confusing canon with the historical record of the 40k universe. These two are not the same. Canon is handed down by an authoritative body, an arbiter of what is an isn't, and generally only exists in fictional worlds and religionsAh, that's not what I'm saying though. Or at least not what I was trying to say. I'm saying that canon is 40k is precisely NOT the historical record of the 40k universe. The historical record of the 40k universe doesn't exist anywhere in our world, but 40k canon does. Canon is just the catalogue of real-world works that are agreed to make up what we know about the 40k universe, the same way that the three books that make up The Lord of the Rings + the Silmarillion, Hobbit, etc. are the canon of the universe of Middle Earth. This is not the sense the word canon is used in terms of religious scripture, but in pop culture, which I agree could be confusing. Religious canon carries connotations of Truth (with a capital T). Canon in terms of pop culture does not. It has nothing directly to do with the historical record of the universe it describes, it is simply all of the information the creator of the fiction has provided us about that fictional universe. That is not the same thing as the historical record of that universe.

To prove that's not what I meant I'll say this, if canon = truth in-universe then imagine this hypothetical case:

Ghazkull Thraka is an Ork.
Ghazkull Thraka is two Tau in an Ork suit.

Clearly these claims cannot both be true in-universe. Ghazza can't literally be an Ork and two Tau in an Ork suit at the same time. Now what if two different GW produced sources made these two different claims? Would only one of them be canon? How would you tell which one was canon? The answer is they are both canon, but one of them is not true in-universe. Therefore, canon does not equal true in-universe. Canon equals everything produced by GW, or everything written by a member of the design team, or some other real world criteria. Truth in universe is different.


Suspension of disbelief, in this case (and, sadly, many others in the 40k universe) actually lies in believing what GW writes is true (in-universe).Some of what they write is true in-universe; the fun is going in-universe and finding out what! Not everything GW writes can be true in-universe because some of it conflicts. Are Salamanders white or black? The current codex says they're black. My old White Dwarf (equally published by GW) has a picture of them and they are most definitely white dudes.

I don't think I get what you're saying though. How would you decide whether Salamanders are black or white? Would you reason that one source is not valid for some real world reason (e.g. 21st century fluff beats 1980s fluff), or would you do something like find all the examples you could and add them up and pick the one winner? If the former, then it means you judge truth in-universe by the real world status of the canon and that means you have to deal with the fact that the fluff could change at any time. If the latter it means you judge truth in-universe by suspending disbelief and analyzing the canon material as if it were conflicting historical sources. That's the distinction I'm getting at.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 10:42 AM
You forget, Kahoolin... history is written by the winners.

This applies to 40k as well as the real world.



By the way, look up the definition of retcon.

Faultie
05-11-2010, 12:39 PM
By the way, look up the definition of retcon.
In GW's case, it's a sort of continual form. Real-time, as it were.
More than that, I think it's a case that GW is a bit willy-nilly with how they go about creating fluff. There are different writers, and they produce different codices. Beyond that, there are Black Library books, Fantasy Flight publications, Relic/THQ games, etc., and they (seemingly more-often-than-not) contradict one another.

To prove that's not what I meant I'll say this, if canon = truth in-universe then imagine this hypothetical case:

Ghazkull Thraka is an Ork.
Ghazkull Thraka is two Tau in an Ork suit.Much as I wish this were true (two Tau in an Ork suit would be fantastically hilarious), there are few such blatant(ly funny) contradictions in the GW lore.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 12:47 PM
GW retcons all the time. Possibly far too ften, making ti confusing.

Faultie
05-11-2010, 12:57 PM
GW retcons all the time. Possibly far too ften, making ti confusing.
...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

Inquisitor Soren
05-11-2010, 12:59 PM
GW retcons all the time. Possibly far too ften, making ti confusing.

From realizing that in a, 'its fantasy game' way I would agree. GW retcons like it is going outta style. But in-universe that makes things somewhat interesting. By messing with the fluff so much it has given the players the licenses to do whatever they want in 40k. There are so many contradictions in the fluff that it lets players pick and choose what they want to believe is 'real'. I think they have 'destroyed' their fluff continuity, but in doing so have created something fairly unique as well.

I'm not sure I could name another game or game system from anything that has the diversity that 40k in its lore.

On a Simpsons Related note: "I wonder if I can Cannonize a child." "Leaving!"

Sorry that has been in my head for hours...

Melissia
05-11-2010, 01:05 PM
Naw, I think they have a fluff continuity, but it's just bizzarely organized.

...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

Because the BoLS crew haven't deemed it worth their time yet, and frankly I don't blame them. When/Ifever they feel like it, they'll do it.

Nabterayl
05-11-2010, 01:59 PM
I agree with Kahoolin. What he's describing really is the process by which in-universe truth is decided in all fictional universes.

To put it another way, we have a large number of sources that are canon, but not all pieces of canon are equally reliable from a fictional-historiographical approach. Take a real-life example, the Roman Empire. If you want to read about the history of Rome in the 3rd through 2nd century BC, we have two main authors to choose from: Polybius (writing in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC), and Livy (writing in the very late 1st century BC). Both Polybius and Livy are historical sources, and you'd be a fool not to use both of them. But if the two of them conflict (and I'm simplifying hugely here) Polybius should be considered the more reliable source, since he was writing about events that had happened in his lifetime. They are equally historical sources; they are not equally reliable.

Substitute "canon" for "historical sources" and you have the process by which we decide what "really happened" in any fictional universe. If you've spent any time in GFFA fandom, you're probably familiar with the four levels of canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon) that Lucasarts has articulated. That is just an institutionalization of this same process. C-canon is trumped by G-canon, but it's still "canon." It's just less reliable.

Lucasarts makes it fairly easy for a Star Wars fan, since they have official levels of reliability for each piece of canon. The task for the 40K fan is not so much to decide what's canon and what's not as to decide how reliable each piece of canon is.

gwensdad
05-11-2010, 04:12 PM
...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

If I understand the software right, they would have to make a special category of user in order to do that. Currently it looks like the categories are "regular user" (who get titles based on # of posts) and "BoLS crew" (who I read as "Moderators").

Anyway...let's get back to Truthiness in the 40K universe....

DarkLink
05-11-2010, 06:27 PM
...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

Alas, but we can't pick army-specific ranks. Unless you earn the special attention of the Admin, like Eldargal has.

Kahoolin
05-11-2010, 06:33 PM
By the way, look up the definition of retcon.I know what retconning is. My point is that yeah, conflicting fluff means usually that something has been retconned in the canon in the real world, but you can't just say "it's retconned" when someone asks why Salamanders are now black. That is not an adequate in-universe explanation.

@Fautie, I admit my example was contrived. What do you have to say about the Salamanders then?

How do we find out if they are really black or white in-universe? By deciding which canon we believe on the basis that one is a retcon and the other is therefore outdated? Or by examining all the canon and coming up with a convincing in-universe explanation?

What I'm trying to say (and I realise Nab at least gets it and =I= Soren seems to as well so I must be explaining it OK in some sense) is that it doesn't make sense to mix up the two approaches. If I come home from work and my house has been burgled, do I think burglars have smashed my stuff, or do I just say "oh that's nice, God has retconned my life?"

The first is an in-universe explanation, the second is an explanation from canon :D Of course both are true in a way, but not at the same time. Each truth is the result of a different approach.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 06:37 PM
Yes there is, actually...

All Marines can change their pigmentation dependant on the nature of the planet they're on. Even Salamanders.

Kahoolin
05-11-2010, 06:46 PM
All Marines can change their pigmentation dependant on the nature of the planet they're on. Even Salamanders.See, now that is an adequate in-universe explanation. Except . . . I know that the Salamanders now (as a result of retconning) have a flaw so that their planet turns them permanently black. How does this square with the old artwork in-universe? That stuff may have been produced in the 80s in the real world, but it was still the 41st millenium in-universe and ... wait a minute how do you even know that stuff about marine skin? You've been reading MARINE FLUFF HAVEN'T YOU! :p

Jokes aside, all Im trying to say is that if we want to talk in-universe we have to stick to in-universe justifications which don't just come from canon - they come from canon+ historical analysis of the canon. And if we want to talk ret-conning and canonical validity then we don't get to use in-universe justifications or what seems likely to be true in-universe to decide what is really canon and what isn't.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 07:05 PM
It's nearly impossible to know 40k fluff without knowing about the Marine implants.

Kahoolin
05-11-2010, 07:54 PM
Lucasarts makes it fairly easy for a Star Wars fan, since they have official levels of reliability for each piece of canon. The task for the 40K fan is not so much to decide what's canon and what's not as to decide how reliable each piece of canon is.So I guess we could say that unlike Lucasarts, GW has a . . . loose canon :rolleyes:

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. I hear the Salmon is delicious.

eldargal
05-11-2010, 08:02 PM
Oh, that really made me laugh.:o


So I guess we could say that unlike Lucasarts, GW has a . . . loose canon :rolleyes:

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. I hear the Salmon is delicious.

Melissia
05-11-2010, 08:15 PM
That was so horrible it made me chuckle.

Inquisitor Soren
05-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Wow that was so bad I had to get up and walk away from the PC. Holy Terra man!

BuFFo
05-13-2010, 11:10 PM
The canon in 40k is what the writer decides it to be.

The game is an ever evolving game where history is rewritten to suit the gamer.

In essence, 40k has no canon. It changes when 1) codex authors deem it necessary and when 2) players deem it necessary for the narrative of their games.

One codex you, and all gamers for years believe in one way, then when the army is updated/redone with a new codex, most everything changes.

Think of 40k as more 'Dungeons and Dragons' and less 'Magic the Gathering' when it comes to the fluidity of the canon/story/history of the setting.

Last year there was a mini campaign in my area where the Necrons invaded Terra, instead of Chaos, during the Undead Uprising, instead of the Horus Heresy.

Kahoolin
05-14-2010, 12:19 AM
In essence, 40k has no canon. It changes when 1) codex authors deem it necessary and when 2) players deem it necessary for the narrative of their games.

One codex you, and all gamers for years believe in one way, then when the army is updated/redone with a new codex, most everything changes.

Think of 40k as more 'Dungeons and Dragons' and less 'Magic the Gathering' when it comes to the fluidity of the canon/story/history of the setting.

Last year there was a mini campaign in my area where the Necrons invaded Terra, instead of Chaos, during the Undead Uprising, instead of the Horus Heresy.I think this is the way GW sees it, so it's certainly a valid way to look at it. If you take this view though you can't really discuss fluff from an in-universe perspective - no-one can be wrong because what I make up for a game against my mates is just as much 40k canon as a codex.

So while this is fair enough, it doesn't really address the problem people often have with trying to resolve fluff discrepancies. You're simply saying there aren't any discrepancies because there is no canon.

Nabterayl
05-14-2010, 01:27 AM
Yeah, I don't know if we can go quite that far practically speaking. I mean, hey, there are no space marines! There is no Chaos. I'm an author, and I decided. That's the way it works, right?

I mean ... surely not. Yes, canon can change. That's the nature of fiction. If George Lucas said tomorrow that there are not and never have been any Jedi Knights, that would be Star Wars canon ... from that point forward. But the fact that that could happen doesn't mean there's no such thing as canon.

Kahoolin
05-14-2010, 02:28 AM
If George Lucas said tomorrow that there are not and never have been any Jedi Knights, that would be Star Wars canon ... from that point forward.*cough*midichlorians*cough*

Melissia
05-14-2010, 11:13 AM
Hell, Lucas even retconned that, making the midichlorians more a biological representation of how strong a person was in the force, rather than them being the force itself. Or some crap like that, personally, I'd rather just ignore it altogether anyway.

Schnitzel
05-14-2010, 06:53 PM
Hell, Lucas even retconned that, making the midichlorians more a biological representation of how strong a person was in the force, rather than them being the force itself. Or some crap like that, personally, I'd rather just ignore it altogether anyway.

I'm getting a high midichlorian reading from this one. ;)

Kahoolin
05-14-2010, 08:52 PM
Actually George Lucas is interesting for a general discussion of canon and the creator of a work. Does he have the right to change it constantly? I'm not sure he does. Well, I don't think he should. I'm one of those people who flew into a nerd-rage when the Ewok's song got turned into pan pipes in the Return of the Jedi re-issue :rolleyes:

To me, works are created mainly for the audience, not the satisfaction of the creator. Once a work is made public and accepted into the hearts of an audience, I think it is as much theirs as the creators, if not more so. Besides, in most cases you have paid money for it to be yours in a sense. The original SW trilogy were a massive part of my childhood, and many other people's, and when Lucas changed them because he felt like it I felt as if he didn't have that right. Yeah he's the creator, but so what? It's bigger than him once other people's emotions and memories are invested, and it's his fault those people's emotions and memories are invested. He bears a responsibility to accept that his creation succeeded and that he is no longer the only person who owns it emotionally. If he can't hack that he should be in a different business.

I'm not arguing for this view - it's just how I feel. By retconning the force via midichlorians for example he violated the spirit of his creation as he had originally presented it to the world. He turned Star Wars from being great science fantasy to being bad science fiction apparently on a whim, and I think that's bad creator-ness.

To relate this to 40k, when someone reads some retcon that they feel violates part of the spirit of the work that they have connected with, they often get the same feeling. Some people don't care and just take it in stride, but many have an urge to reject the retcon as being not authentic. It's almost like the first group has loyalty to the creator, and the second has loyalty to the work.

AirHorse
05-15-2010, 11:02 AM
Fair points there Kahoolin, did you ever see the star wars christmas special? Nearly ruined star wars completely for me!

But more on topic, I think that the difference between something like star wars and 40k is that 40k is a game system at its heart, and while the fluff is clearly integral to the game, so is the system and so sometimes conflicts arise because of the system, not because of the fluff.

I mean 40k has changed an awful lot as things went on, and as far as I am aware the biggest changes came because of the game system necessitating major changes, all though im not a massively veteran player or anything so my direct experience is limited to second ed onwards :)

chromedog
05-18-2010, 03:10 AM
It was more of a thanksgiving special.
Given the timing when it aired in the US. (Just after Hallowe'en). It's commonly known as the "christmas special" here because that was when it was aired for us (Christmas eve).

I still have my copy on VHS. George's stormtroopers haven't managed to disappear my copy yet. It is being digitally archived for posterity and then the internet will know fear.

Although some of the current retconning is bringing older SW fluff back into canon.

The Kaiburr crystal being the repository of the list of all known force sensitives (from "Splinter of the Mind's Eye") in a recent (to our TVs) Clone Wars cartoon.

Duke
05-18-2010, 11:14 AM
Speaking of 40k and star wars crossovers did anyone else notice that Dan gave Eisenhorn a lightsaber?! I was all nerd-raged when I read that.