Canon and truth in-universe

[Kahoolin]

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 . 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]

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]

Makes sense (on the most basic level) to me!

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

[Melissia]

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]

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]

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

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

[Melissia]

... Canon is spelled with one N, Inquisitor Soren :P

[Paul]

... 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]

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]

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.