In the Shadow of Tolkein: 40k and Collaborative Fiction

[The Last Lamenter]

Far removed from fan fiction with its lack of canonization and tendency towards eroticism, (see Kirk and Spock FF) the 40k Universe represent a new prototype of literature, in that the authors of the lore have adopted an unprecedented collaborative, incorporative, and inclusive method of writing. This manner of story-telling is distinct from all other forms of composition theory, in that it does not propose an agenda, it is unrecognized by academia, and it was spontaneously created as a reflection of the next generation reader’s heightened awareness of the fledgling tradition of science fiction and fantasy.
There are themes in 40k that, upon first encounter may seem like the author giving honor to, or perhaps even plagiarizing from, a classic work without giving due credit. For example, we see clear incorporation of classic authors in Inquisitor Czevak’s statement from the fourth edition Eldar Codex where he says “[a]sk not the Eldar a question for they will give you three answers, all of which are true and terrifying to know.” This quote is a pairing of the best of Arthur C. Clark and Tolkien, who lends the Imperium of man its profound sense of tragedy. Clark’s reimagined line is borrowed from Visions 1999, preceding the Codex by seven years, which states that “[t]wo possibilities exist: either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying”, and in LOTR, from Fellowship when Frodo says of Gildor, “Go not to the Elves for council for they will answer both no and yes.” Then there is the constant allusions to Blake’s heretical poetry in the first three HH books, and Chris Roberson’s reference to Musashi’s Book of Five Rings with his Book of Five Spheres in Sons of Dorn. This may seem like unconscious referencing or even plagiarism, until we acknowledge what has happened in the mind of the science fiction writer and the reader:
These writers have become part of the communal consciousness of the subculture of which we are part. Just as certain authors and tropes have become part of the national consciousness of England, such as Shakespeare and Thomas Malory, a reference to them or their work is commonplace, for their work is so entrenched in the culture that even the uneducated may reference them unknowingly (i.e. “pomp and circumstance” and “What the dickens?”). And, as I’ve mentioned before, the Brits cannot seem to leave the Arthurian legend alone when constructing any fantasy or science fiction world; so it is with Clark, Tolkien, H.G. Wells, and others in the scifi/fantasy community. But who is to decide when and how these writers should have their work opened for public use when it has already become a cultural touchstone?
40k and other works have incorporated useful science fiction devices to enable traditional story-telling, for example faster-than-light-travel, in Star-Trek’s Warp Drive, Star War’s Hyper Space, or Douglas’s Infinite Improbability Drive, but more on that later… Besides the obvious use of elves (Eldar), dwarves (squats), and orcs (orks), one has to look harder for other characters in other works. For example Dune makes use of a Navigator gene like in 40k. There are many many others, but the point is that this is an indicator of just how big 40k has become. It is incorporating the best of science fiction and fantasy into a master story. It is implicitly acknowledging that the fans have evolved to a higher state where their touchstones are people who are still alive! The tropes are being born right before us and becoming part of the universe.
The rate for assimilation into the tradition of scifi has increased, and these authors’ works have become subject to the fan’s own idea of common law concerning copyright. If it’s good enough, or original enough, it will become a theme of 40k and part of a grand collaborative tradition. These authors are making fantastic use of the best that science fiction and fantasy has to offer at an accelerated rate. Other genres have to wait, oftentimes centuries before touchstones become apparent, but whether out of a lack of scholarly tradition or sheer enthusiasm, I like to think enthusiasm, we are seeing a grand tradition of collaborative literature unfolding in the past 50 years, relatively young for a genre.

[YorkNecromancer]

it was spontaneously created as a reflection of the next generation reader’s heightened awareness of the fledgling tradition of science fiction and fantasy.

Also GW's desire for money. And every fan's desire to "join in" with their hobby. Which is easily as old as Sherlock Holmes.

There are themes in 40k that, upon first encounter may seem like the author giving honor to, or perhaps even plagiarizing from, a classic work without giving due credit.

Obi-Wan Sherlock Clouseu? Surely not.

Then there is the constant allusions to Blake’s heretical poetry in the first three HH books, and Chris Roberson’s reference to Musashi’s Book of Five Rings with his Book of Five Spheres in Sons of Dorn. This may seem like unconscious referencing or even plagiarism, until we acknowledge what has happened in the mind of the science fiction writer and the reader:
These writers have become part of the communal consciousness of the subculture of which we are part.

OR it could be hack writers wanting to sound clever, and so quoting from deeper and more significant work than theirs to add the illusion of depth.

But who is to decide when and how these writers should have their work opened for public use when it has already become a cultural touchstone?

The same person responsible when any writer's work becomes famous: the artists and writers who steal their ideas.

40k and other works have incorporated useful science fiction devices to enable traditional story-telling, for example faster-than-light-travel, in Star-Trek’s Warp Drive, Star War’s Hyper Space, or Douglas’s Infinite Improbability Drive

[url]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale[/url]

It is incorporating the best of science fiction and fantasy into a master story.

That's a nice way to say "it's shamelessly ripping off everything that anyone has ever done in sci-fi for the purpose of selling plastic soldiers".

And I don't know if I'd say "the best of science fiction". Perhaps the best of Western, white, straight, heteronormative, cis-male science fiction. And also ssuming "best" means "most well known" rather than "of the highest quality".

Also, a "master story" seems an overly grandiose term to use. I would have thought a "master story" to be one that was about the whole of human existence; one that enlightened us as to our essential nature. 40K seems to have rather too many chainsaws and gimp masks for that. If you mean a shared continuity, well, Marvel and DC both have those too.

It is implicitly acknowledging that the fans have evolved to a higher state where their touchstones are people who are still alive! The tropes are being born right before us and becoming part of the universe.

We are in the middle of a huge resurgence in the popularity of sci-fi entertainment as a whole. That might be something to do with why...

whether out of a lack of scholarly tradition or sheer enthusiasm

OR a desire for money.

Let's not forget that we live in the real world and that Games Workshop is a business.

Overall, you seem to want to elevate Warhammer 40,000 to the status of High Art. I don't think it is, and honestly? You need to read a lot more around the subject before you try to even begin that fight. Yeah, the books might be fun, but compared to something like 1984 (which has more and better things to say about totalitarianism), Of Mice and Men (which has more to say about the futility of hope in the face of an uncaring universe), The Handmaid's Tale (which has more to say about the exploitation of women by brutal theocracy), Beloved (which has more to say about the lingering effects of brutality), A Song of Ice and Fire (which has a better exploration of the compromises necessary to function in a feudal political system and the conflict between honour, necessity and desire)... seriously, you want to compare 40K's story to literature, you need to bring some serious literary analysis.

You also need to deal with the problematic aspects of the 40K universe - it has the most dreadful issues with ethnicity and gender. Referring back to A Song of Ice and Fire, compare the presentation of women. In A Song of Ice and Fire, there are numerous female characters, each with a story, each used as a lens to analyse a separate theme within the novel, and society as a whole. Yes there is misogyny, but the novel explores it, rather than using it - as some of 40K's defendants have claimed - as background colour (or more horribly, simply reflecting the grotesque personal failings of the author's imagination). There's Danaerys Targaryen, used to explore the ways a woman has to take power by force. There's Sansa Stark, who explores the theme of female powerlessness and lack of agency, as well as the problem of privelege. There's Catelyn Stark, a deconstruction of the "closer to Earth/mother knows best" tropes. There's Cersei Lannister, a case study in the different expectations between men and women, and a demonstration of just how a brutal, unfair society makes one brutal in turn. This doesn't even get into characters like Arya, Brienne of Tarth, Ygritte, Shae, Missandei, Melisandre, and so on. And all this from a series that isn't even primarily about women! It's about war and dragons and ice zombies.

40K is often little more than manly men doing manly things. Which is fine and all, but even by the standards of the genre, 40K is lacking.

If you want a list of narrative things that 40K does do well, I suggest you start here:

[url]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/Warhammer40000[/url]

[The Last Lamenter]

Alright Sergeant York, Let's do this:

You’re dismissing this tradition of writing spanning thirty years because it doesn’t deal with situation of women? Is a heavily gendered text now the paradigm of literature? Are you really slamming 40k because of its lack of a strong female presence? This isn’t even accurate, what about the sisters of battle novels, and the Eldar’s female warriors? What about the major role the Brides of the Emperor fulfill at the end of the Age of Apostasy? What about the remembrencers in the HH novels? What about the Saint? Do I need to give you additional examples? What about the recent female Lieutenant in the game from Relic? Even if your comment was true, it does not hold as a standard of good literature. If situation of women and anti-imperialism was what defined great books, we’d be throwing out around 4,000 years of writing, including ALL of the classics which are 99% “Western, white, straight, heteronormative, cis-male,” to borrow your quote. I’ve spent the past decade studying literature and I can only think of a few exceptions, maybe Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, Bronte, and all the post-Virgina Woolfers. Kind of hard to write from a woman’s perspective if you’re a dude. Women are usually better at writing from a woman’s POV, but I digress. If I had to accept that narrow of a view, I wouldn’t be allowed to read Hemingway and God knows if Julius Caesar would still be taught what with the only female lead spouting off her few lines before swallowing burning coals. Certain feminist academics have done some marvelous analytical gymnastics to rethink these tragic heroines as something they were not, but for whatever reason, these authors just did not deal with situation of women.
I appreciate you trying to point me in the right direction concerning good literature, but the books you’ve listed are the equivalent of any highschool AP lit. course. I know because I teach 1984. So that we can continue from this point with you understanding that I am not an unread Pleb making ignorant claims, let me say that I’ve read all the books you’ve suggested, and even more in college, where I earned a degree in English Literature, then plenty more in graduate school, where I studied American Literature. So let’s keep talking, but not with you thinking that the Space Wolf Omnibus was the first book I’ve ever read.
In keeping with your Marxist approach that it is all shameful trash and smoke and mirrors designed to sell tiny figurines, there is, indeed, some validity in your claim that it’s all about the money. GW and BB are businesses after all. However, I highly doubt someone would devote his life to 40k just for the money, considering the BB has had only one NYT bestseller. I understand that you may be upset over the price of miniatures, but calling all these authors “hack writers” in it for the money is a very broad stroke. Have you read the biographies of some of these guys? Most of them are scholars with degrees in literature and history. Some hold advanced degrees and many are critically acclaimed. I can give you examples if you need them.


I do not include super hero comics because, although they are quite detailed and most of them masterfully crafted, they are not epics; they center around one protagonist like superman or Batman and the story is mainly about that character’s deeds and personal development, or a small group such as X-men, Justice league crossovers, or Watchmen which meets certain criteria for epic and I would rank alongside 40k had it not been the writing of one man, Alan Moore and therefore a noncollaborative affair. Also Superhero comics are nonlinear, or at least they often choose not to be. There is no standard for canon and the Superheroes exist in multiple published universes with dozens of versions of a particular hero and the stories are constantly being retold and rehashed and remade. How many different versions of Spiderman’s origins do we have? What about Frank Miller’s Batman? That is not collaboration and strict canonization; that is everybody doing their own thing to meet the demand for new superhero stories, and keeping an American staple alive- a noble endeavor. 40k deals with the rise and fall of civilizations and is still currently taking place. It is a storyline spanning over 10,000 years with hundreds and hundreds of characters. The main events are happening right now, major plot elements are still in play, GW or the Black library could announce tomorrow that the Lion has woke up or the failures in the Golden throne have gone critical. These aren’t Deus ex Machina either, these are well-foreshadowed eventualities. 40k is also a traditional epic, despite the newness of it currently taking place. No one has done this before, not on this scale, not on such an epic level.
Now, let’s talk about Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Trek is a show and movie series and it is the creation of one man, who, up until 2011’s Star Trek, had the final say considering what was and what was not official canon. Of all the hundreds of books published as star Trek novels only two are considered official canon, Two Voyager novels written by Jeri Taylor, and only because Taylor wanted to have his episode writers use these as reference material to flesh our character’s backgrounds. You can argue all you want that what Pocketbooks publishes is canon, but Gene Rodenberry says that although these books might be based on Star Trek but they are not part of his Universe; they are not even supplementary. Also, Star Trek loses continuity as a traditional epic by revamping the series with an alternate timeline, and different versions of the characters, so now it is really confusing to say what Star Trek is anymore, do we even bother including the old stuff? But either way, it is a film and television franchise and therefore subject to an entirely different critical approach. Everything I’ve said about Star Trek also applies to Star Wars in that the story is complete in film, and please, God, let us keep it that way because Disney is most likely going to screw it up.
40k is totally unique in that it has created a universe that is massive enough to incorporate the best of science fiction themes and it is also old and superstitious enough to include classic fantasy themes, and a canonization process strict enough to preserve a traditional story-arc while still allowing multiple authors from around the world. High art? No. literature? Sometimes.

Thank you for the site link. I enjoyed it very much, but I fully intend to bore you with even more examples of why the writing is solid and the themes unprecedented in my next post. Give me about a week. And thank you for your passionate criticism, I find that these nasty little forums are the only places left to get honest and real responses at the expense of one’s ego, but what a bargain price for getting better at writing.

[The Last Lamenter]

A few corrections:

BB now has 7 NYT best sellers not one

The superhero comic does fill at least two requirements of an Epic hero, but considering how it is a contemporary comic book, grittily reenvisioned, this one would be a hard one to argue, because we see heroes more and more humanized as they go on.

[YorkNecromancer]

You’re dismissing this tradition of writing spanning thirty years because it doesn’t deal with situation of women? Is a heavily gendered text now the paradigm of literature? Are you really slamming 40k because of its lack of a strong female presence?

Yes.

Because any universe where I can be an alien, a daemon, a genetically engineered supersoldier or an undead killer robot but CAN'T see more than a handful of the MAJORITY GENDER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES is problematic for me. I love 40K, but it is undeniably massively problematic in this regard. As fans, our duty is not to "defend" but to demand better.

This isn’t even accurate, what about the sisters of battle novels, and the Eldar’s female warriors? What about the major role the Brides of the Emperor fulfill at the end of the Age of Apostasy? What about the remembrencers in the HH novels? What about the Saint?

What about them?
[url]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenMinority[/url]

The Adepta Sororitas as a very concept is pure segregation. Here's Anita Sarkeesian's excellent video on Lego Friends; everything she says about the ghettoisation of a female prescence can be applied to 40K.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrmRxGLn0Bk[/url]

Do I need to give you additional examples? What about the recent female Lieutenant in the game from Relic?

One very minor, unplayable character in a game about men suddenly means 40K is an equal playing field? Nonsense. Tokenism again.

Even if your comment was true, it does not hold as a standard of good literature. If situation of women and anti-imperialism was what defined great books, we’d be throwing out around 4,000 years of writing, including ALL of the classics which are 99% “Western, white, straight, heteronormative, cis-male,” to borrow your quote. I’ve spent the past decade studying literature and I can only think of a few exceptions, maybe Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, Bronte, and all the post-Virgina Woolfers.

We can enjoy things while criticising them. I love lots of things that are deeply problematic, but I DON'T deny they ARE problematic. And yes, I genuinely regard vast swathes of pre-feminist literature as worth criticising due to its massive focus on men and men's issues. Is this due to the fact that most writer then were men? Probably. Was that because they were better writers?

I suspect it's more to do with the fact they had all the power. One cannot be a writer if one has been denied access to education and never taught how.

Kind of hard to write from a woman’s perspective if you’re a dude.

"Hard" is not equivelant to "impossible". A good starting point is to talk to as many people as you can. I'm not arguing that all books should be about women all the time; that would be just as bad. I'm just in favour of a realistic, interesting portrayal of female characters who have agency and aren't simply reduced to MacGuffins to be saved or prizes to be awarded to a hero who has defeated a villain.

If I had to accept that narrow of a view, I wouldn’t be allowed to read Hemingway

You're swerving into hyperbolic rhetoric. I never said you weren't allowed, nor that you couldn't enjoy what you read. Just that it's problematic. Which it is. No-one is stopping you doing anything.

and God knows if Julius Caesar would still be taught what with the only female lead spouting off her few lines before swallowing burning coals.

Obvious straw man arguments are not worth anyone's time. Please don't use them again.

Certain feminist academics have done some marvelous analytical gymnastics to rethink these tragic heroines as something they were not, but for whatever reason, these authors just did not deal with situation of women.

"Feminism" is as valid a label as "wargamer". Some people play 40K; other Warmahordes; other Malifaux. You're not giving specific examples here, but making a general disdainful remark which, again, is basically a straw man argument. You're also going off-topic. You can't prove 40K isn't problematic by attacking some vague "feminist agenda". Even if they're wrong about everything else (which they probably aren't) that doesn't take away from the problems.

I appreciate you trying to point me in the right direction concerning good literature, but the books you’ve listed are the equivalent of any highschool AP lit. course. I know because I teach 1984. So that we can continue from this point with you understanding that I am not an unread Pleb making ignorant claims, let me say that I’ve read all the books you’ve suggested, and even more in college, where I earned a degree in English Literature, then plenty more in graduate school, where I studied American Literature. So let’s keep talking, but not with you thinking that the Space Wolf Omnibus was the first book I’ve ever read.

I never thought you were an unread pleb. I just think you're getting angry about the wrong things and the wrong people.

In keeping with your Marxist approach that it is all shameful trash and smoke and mirrors designed to sell tiny figurines

How am I wrong? I'm feeling some strong ad hominem here. I never said it was shameful; I see no shame in business - I actually think business is a very worthy thing! I just don't like it when people deny it's not a factor when it clearly is! You can't compare 40K to great literature unless you are fully prepared to address this. Think of Dickens: the man wrote for serial publication, which means his writing has a certain "shape" as a result. Business affects product, and that's what 40K is. Now, if you consider something like the Hammer films of Terence Fisher, those were made to make money, buy Fisher was determined that they be as good as they could within those confines. I don't think there's anything wrong with creating art specifically so it sells - you're the one who has deemed it "shameful".

However, I highly doubt someone would devote his life to 40k just for the money,

You're speculating here. Conjecture is not a valid argumental position.

I understand that you may be upset over the price of miniatures,

I couldn't care less about the price of models. I buy what I can when I can and I'm okay with that. I feel bad for the current generation of teenagers who have to fork out a fortune, but that doesn't extend one iota to me wanting to complain about it. I've been into 40K for years, and I got bored of hearing price complaints in 1993.

but calling all these authors “hack writers” in it for the money is a very broad stroke. Have you read the biographies of some of these guys?

No... but I have met Dan Abnett when he was at a ComicCon in Leeds, UK. A lovely, lovely man, genuine and cheerful. He openly calls his 40K books "War Porn", because he's a craftsman, not an artist. I have copies of the "Action Force" annuals he wrote to sell toys. The man just wants to get paid; now, again, returning to Hammer horror, that doesn't mean what he does is bad (actually, Abnett's better than most), but even he doesn't regard it as high art. As for the other writers? I can't talk for them, but from what I've read of their stuff... yeah, it's pretty dreadful. I don't think "hack writers" is too strong.

Most of them are scholars with degrees in literature and history.Some hold advanced degrees and many are critically acclaimed. I can give you examples if you need them.

Their qualifications do not interest me. The quality of their stories does. Their stories do not interest me, and would have to work very, very hard to do so, as I have no interest in narratives built around an ugly unreconstructed adolescent male power fantasy.

I do not include super hero comics because, although they are quite detailed and most of them masterfully crafted, they are not epics

Warren Ellis' "Planetary" and Alan Moore's "V For Vendetta" disagree with you here. I also take issue with the inference that an "epic" is better than a standalone story. Why must the fate of the world hang in the balance? If I never, ever saw another "epic" story (or anything puffed up enough to call itself a "saga" - ugh) I would be perfectly happy. People interest me, not massive battles.

Now, this is an issue of personal taste - you love epics? Fair enough. But they are not the be-all and end-all of literature, nor are they the be-all and end-all of speculative fiction.

Also Superhero comics are nonlinear, or at least they often choose not to be.

Money defines product. Again.

There is no standard for canon

With a straight face you type this? Truth be told, I despise the whole idea of canon. It's why I despise superhero stories that are in constant publication. Writers should be free to write whatever they wish, free of the constraints of whatever someone before them wrote. The story should be all that matters.

40k deals with the rise and fall of civilizations and is still currently taking place. It is a storyline spanning over 10,000 years with hundreds and hundreds of characters. The main events are happening right now, major plot elements are still in play, GW or the Black library could announce tomorrow that the Lion has woke up or the failures in the Golden throne have gone critical. These aren’t Deus ex Machina either, these are well-foreshadowed eventualities. 40k is also a traditional epic, despite the newness of it currently taking place. No one has done this before, not on this scale, not on such an epic level.

DC and Marvel have. They do it in a different way, but you argue semantics - it's exactly the same. There is a canon of key stories (Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spide; Horus betrays the Emperor) and someone fleshes out the details. If you chose to stick to canon a s a writer? good for you. If not? Good for you. If writing is art, the writer must be free to write what they like, just as you must be free to like it, or not.

Now, let’s talk about Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Trek is a show and movie series and it is the creation of one man, who, up until 2011’s Star Trek, had the final say considering what was and what was not official canon. Of all the hundreds of books published as star Trek novels only two are considered official canon, Two Voyager novels written by Jeri Taylor, and only because Taylor wanted to have his episode writers use these as reference material to flesh our character’s backgrounds. You can argue all you want that what Pocketbooks publishes is canon, but Gene Rodenberry says that although these books might be based on Star Trek but they are not part of his Universe; they are not even supplementary. Also, Star Trek loses continuity as a traditional epic by revamping the series with an alternate timeline, and different versions of the characters, so now it is really confusing to say what Star Trek is anymore, do we even bother including the old stuff? But either way, it is a film and television franchise and therefore subject to an entirely different critical approach.

No it's not. They're stories, they have a canon (for people who care - we've established by now I will never be one of them) - and there you have it.

Everything I’ve said about Star Trek also applies to Star Wars in that the story is complete in film, and please, God, let us keep it that way because Disney is most likely going to screw it up.

It's off topic, but Star Wars has already been ruined. George Lucas did a bang-up job with episode 1, eh?

Jar-Jar Binks.

Disney cannot possibly do anything worse. You know, unless they remade "Irreversible" with lightsabres.

40k is totally unique in that it has created a universe that is massive enough to incorporate the best of science fiction themes

You keep using that word.

"best"

By whose standards? Not mine.

and it is also old and superstitious enough to include classic fantasy themes

Not in and of itself, unique. The whole genre of urban fantasy does that.

and a canonization process strict enough to preserve a traditional story-arc while still allowing multiple authors from around the world. High art? No. literature? Sometimes.

I think you and I are going to have to disagree. Probably forever.

Hope these thoughts were interesting for you. If you really want your thinking challenged regarding feminism, I suggest you read the blog Requires Only That You Hate. The author is a self-described feminazghul. She hates Tolkein so much it burns ([url]http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-tolkien-fanboy-fallacies-yes-tolkien-was-a-racist-sexist-bore-deal-with-it/[/url]). Her posts are normally very, very detailed breakdowns of why a particular book is dreadful, and average 10,000 words, usually with extensive quotations.

Yet surprisingly, she likes Dan Abnett ([url]http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/in-the-grim-darkness-of-future-there-is-demonic-foeyay/[/url]).

[url]http://requireshate.wordpress.com/[/url]

[Denzark]

York

You rely too much on tvtropes as a source. They are clever snarky types and take as much from your argument as they lend.

[Houghten]

I wouldn't call three links "relying on them too much," and besides which: Feh.

[Anggul]

Yeah York is right. Some 40k books are very cool and very fun to read, but ultimately it would be extremely pretentious to claim that they hold a great deal of depth. Some of them do indeed contain meaning, but it's very up-front about it.

[Gotthammer]

Kind of hard to write from a woman’s perspective if you’re a dude.

If that's your reason for not writing women (or minorities or what have you) then you shouldn't be writing at all. I mean it's kinda hard to write from a two hundred year old, seven foot tall genetically modified super-soldier's perspective (about his childhood on a planet made of lava) if you're not a two hundred year old, seven foot tall genetically modified super-soldier's perspective (who grew up on a planet made of lava).
A less facetious response would be that unless you're writing a slightly existential first person narrative with no other characters you're writing from other people's perspectives all the time (or all your characters act the same).

Many of the 40k novels and extra materials (FFG RPG books etc) are quite good at representing non-white non-dude people (or at least significantly better than they used to be), but the 40k universe as a whole is kinda terrible. The recent Eldar codex, aside from Jain Zar and the Banshees - my next band's name - only features three other depictions of female Eldar (two guardians in photos and a Harlequin in an art panel) - significantly less than the previous edition.


And personally I think the lack of romance in 40k stories is what makes them seem so dry much of the time. I'm not meaning full blown Mills & Boon here, but any sort of deep emotional connection between the characters. I mean taking the ur-novel, Space Marine, it's basically a love story between Lex, Yuri and Biff. Yuri and Biff idealise/idolise and have a very tsundre relationship towards Lex respectively, but he is too proud and stubborn to see it until it's too late and they die (um, spoilers, I guess, but it's 20 years old so whatever). The fact that their emotional link is highly developed gives the ending impact, rather than just being a thing that happens.
Similarly the Inquisition War trilogy is a giant love story with the Ian Watson's self-insert character- I mean Inquisitor Jaq Draco being in love with the super hot assassin babe that everybody want but she only loves him for no explainable reason and going on an impossible quest to save her when she dies (being a colossal dick to everyone along the way).

Do all 40k stories need this stuff? No - I mean Titanicus is awesome and it's just stompy robots except for the bit where the Moderatii is in his situation 'casue he killed a dude because he loved his Princeps so much and the tanker determined to get his rag-tag group through safely could be seen as a father figure analogy... crap.
Well there's Ultramarines where Uriel Ventris shows up and machine guns a bunch of dude and is stone cold about it. But McNiell himself has referred to them as bolter-porn, so that's what they're there for. Not a bad thing, but it's a reach to call 40k high art (I'd say art, because even though it's not exploring the human condition in a revolutionalry or particularly deep way, it's still a lot of creativity going into it).

[Nabterayl]

Like a lot of sci-fi properties, I think there's a wild disparity between the depth in 40K itself and the depth in even the best pieces of 40K art. Or, if you prefer, I think 40K art could have a lot more depth than even the best of the extant pieces actually does and still have the look and feel of 40K.