Chapter 7: It's Fine To Be Pissed About Change: Why GW's Fanbase Is Amongst The Worst Out There

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Chapter 6: Why Things Are Probably Worse And Why That Wont Change (Part 2)

Part 2: Gamers Get What They Deserve

Fanboyism: n. the act of corporate fellatio.

I'm going to have to tread carefully here. There is a perilous possibility of being (never mind merely appearing to be) the very kind of ridiculous nonsense that I wish to decry in this chapter. The picture above nods to the sentiment, as I sit here, six lengthy diatribes in, bemoaning the simplicity agenda GW has adopted that, coincidentally enough, has been the principle welcoming factor for many more casual, younger and less stereotypical gamers. It would be easy to devolve into a twitchy, cynical and hateful neckbeard: throwing angry rants from my carefully constructed dice fort, most likely onto the sweaty corners of the internet, such as Dakka, Reddit, and 1D4. Mercifully I do still have some self-respect, or at least, enough of it to not go on Dakka. Anyway, I think it is worth dwelling on the problems gamers create for themselves, for it is not GW's sole responsibility for what gaming has become, irrespective of whether you view what it has come to be as the irrepressible shitshow that I see it as. Whilst GW far too often ducks even a fraction of the blame deserving of their corporate objectives via many, many Apologists giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt (or being too keen to offhand responsibility onto anything else), it still seems likely that the principle reason that this situation wont save itself is that far too many apologists seem to think the Gamers themselves have any hope of fixing it themselves.

And that's bollocks, because Gamers are fucking idiots.

I mean, most of us old farts have plenty of reasons to believe this of the average gamer. After all, we lived through the days of Rules As Written, 6^th-7^th Edition's open hostility to its own audience being defended by its audience as if it was Rynn's World or something, and right up to the problem we have today, of the new agenda of “GW's better now, no more bitching ever” that stultifies the debate into the loyalists and the traitors. I suppose that sort of sentiment is weirdly on point for a bunch of Internet Edgelords obsessed with the homoerotic cyclejerk of the Horus Heresy and it's ten-millennia fallout. At this point I had hoped this realisation would be obvious, but if I have learned one thing from discourse on the internet it's that fandoms are the entrenched, hate-filled decriers they accuse everyone else of being. Nevertheless, I am being quite overly mean about not just GW but also it's fanbase. Obviously, the situation is far more nuanced and convoluted than such a sweeping statement would suggest. Obviously, gamers aren't that stupid, they just frequently act like they are (and some of them just are, but it's unfair to conflate a minority with a totality) and much like any flawed aspect of humanity, they end up often fanatically supporting a cause working to undermine their own interests, marginalise their autonomy and generally shape their character, tastes and desires into the kind of space for a small, fantastically rich elite to farm for their own interests. Naturally, those implications are wider, but in a nutshell the Corporate mentality is devotion to presentation of an idea that costs far more than it's worth to line the pockets of a handful of people who are already rich. That's ultimately GW's interests and it seems many, many of GW's fans are happy to kowtow to those interests for the smallest of concessions and the slightest hint of a reversal of frankly some of the shittiest attitudes any industry has ever seen. No kind of corporate mentality justifies the level of bullshit GW have spouted for the last 20 years, nor their apologists, but fortunately for GW, most of their fans don't care.

So before we proceed, I want to make one thing clear. I don't actually care if this situation changes or not at this point. I'm pretty much done with the GW community in entirety, and thus these are merely my observations. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good situation at all, but it's about as good as it can be currently (although I expect that will change sooner or later) given that GW is ultimately a corporate entity and it's only natural that fans want to like what they've bought into for years and many are happy with what they get. This isn't one of those “look at these sheeple” kind of rants. I mean, I really, really struggle to understand quite what so many people see in 8^th Edition 40k in any single form, but I at least understand that they do. It's puzzling, but this isn't what I'm going to have a go at Gamers over. Oh no. You see, that doesn't actually bother me. 40K was never a revolutionary or astoundingly good ruleset. To my mind, it's been better (every single previous time, actually) but to many it's merely a facilitator of the hobby itself and all it has to do is function (or in 6^th Edition's case, pretend that it does for 2 years) and then people sort out the bits they care about. Job done. Or so you'd think, but then you visit what few forums are left, social media groups, many youtube channels and comment sections, and... oh good gork. See, I wish what I am about to say was a difficult thing to say, but it isn't: much of GW's fanbase is a lot like a cult.

Crikey that's going to take some work to recover from that kind of situation. There's no way I could find a meme that makes this worse...

“Think like we do, or you're just a hater!”

Oh dear, we've gone meta. Well fuck...

Fanboy Ascendant: The Cult of Positivism

It's popular to denounce criticism within wargaming circles. I suppose the competitive element allows devotees to most easily grasp for sour grapes and deploy peer pressure more effectively. But it is strange that in a culture where things are supposed to be great now, one wonders why the perils of blind devotion are not subject to much reflection. I think the key is obvious really, although its reasoning for being is more complex: the fanbase is a jittery, insecure mess and for the first time in over a decade it has the idea of agency and a “stake” in what happens next, and is determined to defend it. But enforcement of positivism can be just as much of a weapon, and whilst the trend for dismissing angry disenchantment on forums as poisoning the well before “New GW™”, we now see a stark contrast of the exact opposite: complete angry resistance to any and all criticism, and even a dictatorial group-think. Cynics may have caused many a flame war by daring to have opinions but never has a cynic started a forum or group on the pretence of enforcing tone. Dozens of Groups and Forums now enforce “No Negativity” rules, where criticism of GW is forbidden. Even in groups that don't have the brass balls to admit the new apologist agenda of maintaining an echo chamber of positivism, open criticism typically leads to marginalisation if not outright expulsion from groups, and that just stops any kind of dialogue from occurring.

The reasoning for this is at least partly understandable, even relatable. Everybody who lived through the latter parts of GW's Kirby Era got sick of the constant criticism and anger. Of course, I would argue that the majority of that was entirely justified, but even if we put that aside, most people who moaned didn't actually want to do all that moaning, no matter what GW's apologists would have you believe. But in the same way, most fans don't want to hear why the thing they like isn't perfect. It's somewhat understandable, but where else is that dialogue going to happen, and the problem is that fans will demand to be free of any criticism or complaints irrespective of where they occur and in what frequency. There will always be fans who have complaints, there will likewise always be apologists who have decided there are too many. The problem comes from, in a sad, ironic sense, GW's apparent commitment to feedback and consumer engagement. Because they engage, the dialogue of what form the game should take now that there is a chance to help shape it, is the narrowest and most inhospitable dialogue the entire gaming community has ever had. The source of that problem is the parts of the community who feel they are already being listened to and catered to, deciding to shape the status quo into an echo chamber of their existing position. This is ultimately a political power play, and it's led by a lot of the people who defended the very era they now denounce as the bygone age.

It's a bizarre and twisted logic that has produced the idea that the very second that GW has become open and receptive (apparently) to criticism, is the key time to have precisely one attitude of what this game is, which is, basically: "It's all good now! Let's just make years of pointless tweaks so we can buy more of your books and spend more on rules in two years than my dad did in 4 editions!". It's almost as if there's a stake to be had, a grasping for legitimacy, a scramble to control what the game is for the sake of creating a new status quo that looks remarkably like the bullshit power-gaming and sales-driven culture that existed in the Kirby era. Well, I suppose there's no law that states apologists should be presenting original ideas nor any semblance of imagination. It is this competitive culture that ultimately dominates gaming discussion, much fortified by GW's decision to divide its games into multiple “experiences”. Notwithstanding that both Narrative and Open are still collectively a crock of shit dressed up as an “option”, they are useful tools used to silence dissent, with many Gamers offhanded to Narrative mode especially and told “that one is for you”. This division fortifies the competitive first mindset, itself fortified by getting most of the content for Matched, alongside the fabled majesty of Points Values, GW's weapon of gaming legitimacy. Points naturally playing a key role in the balance narrative that promotes the existence of 8^th Edition as a necessary antidote. But in the land of GW, this narrative could be easily quashed, if the discussion had any true spirit to it. Knight Soup is still dominant, and GW are being agonisingly slow in addressing that imbalance.

But this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. This is more or less why the situation is so bad, because the culture hasn't actually changed, it's just embraced the line that GW allegedly has and is running with it, hardly adjusting their attitudes nor their practice. I've been insisted to by many an apologist that competitive gaming is better than ever and yet whenever I witness a local tournament I always see the same lists. The same things reoccur and whilst specific units may fall in an out of failure, I'm yet to see many loyalist armies that don't feature at least one Imperial Knight, the usual ante-upping landing in the form of Forge World units for the especially try-hard participants. What is most sad about this culture is its insistence upon embracing and celebrating the acquisition of a new environment with obviously constricted appeal, the permanence of this restriction hand-waved away via the “they listen now” rhetoric. It's no different to the short-sighted defence of the cull of units by claiming they are available, largely, still in the indices, failing to even consider the obvious future where these books are rendered non-game legal and following editions throw those units out onto their pile of desiccated concepts, for the crows to feast.

The fan orthodoxy of the Cult of Positivism ultimately drives forward a very limited narrative that embraces a restricted appeal, and a hyper-simplified game for the promise of some kind of security, the comfort blanket of consideration. GW is clearly moving in those limited directions, and the positivism agenda stifles any meaningful narrative away from challenging that. They play into the space that GW has created for itself, and thus the consensus that forms ensures a self-fulfilling prophesy. Anything that GW does will be greeted as the new cool aid. The position created for itself is simply 100% positive consumerism in its most fanatical form. Those who don't sip the cool aid will be denounced, and any fall in GW's fortunes, any mistake that will hurt in the long term will receive no significant warning from anyone willing to speak of it. GW's own fanbase are making GW blind to any kind of disorder, failings or downsides of the path they have trodden, as GW's games continue down the one avenue they have chosen to adopt, which is a deluge of average, poorly conceived games, endless supplements and a standard live service model. It's as shallow a future vision as its fanbase itself, a perpetuation of a status quo whose only principle feature is to resist the change it has only just become even vaguely of embracing for the first time in its company's history. And apologists wonder why the cynics think they're idiots.

The fanbase has facilitated this situation to the extent that it is the worst situation it could be: the blind following the blind, leading the blind. Much like the Sports Fans of the Computer Gaming industry have allowed and encouraged the popularity of the live service model and its associated microtransactions, loot boxes and gambling mechanics, fanboyism within the GW space has ensured a similar space for GW's interests. In a way, GW's rotten Kirby era created a majority crowd disinterested in well-written and balanced games, and more a cult of devotion to a shifting meta with incredibly obvious financial motives for said shifting. In many ways, this situation is a self-inflicted one, and much like S&M, it's a self-inflicted, consensual inclination, no matter how baffling it may be to onlookers. Whilst no crime, the fanbase still swells with ranks of “listened to” devotees, whilst the same failings dominate the game with no real noticeable change in the game itself nor the atmosphere it had (and continues to still have, probably one of the worst in gaming). The same crowd perpetuate this situation, moving from defending a silent, indifferent and hostile Kirby era to defending more or less the same issues dressed up in a company that claims to be a whole lot nicer. Now with GW adding their rhetoric to the discourse, any counter-narrative is doomed to be shouted down by angry fanboys, determined to maintain an echo chamber of the status quo, no better than the era of disenchanted fans under Kirby and in most ways significantly worse. The sad realisation that for all of the new kinds of gamers this new “image” may be beginning to attract, the fans will still sip the cool aid regardless of the flavour, as they have always done.

Nothing has changed, even during the only time when change is even remotely possible. Now they have that option, they will fight to the death to not use it. Let them. Emancipate yourself, find a game worth playing. Because to my mind, this community stinks and GW continues to do nothing to change that and at best now panders to them. At worst, they're ignored anyway and all of this drama is pointless.

That really wouldn't surprise me at this point.

Chapter 5: Why Things Are Probably Worse And Why That Wont Change (Part 1)

When all you have is the ability to tweak visuals, it does tend to show.

Part 1: The Corporate Mentality and Change Don't Mix

So this is likely where I start to divide people. Because the jugular is exposed and I'm going to go for it. It's been quite popular to declare victory with “New GW™”(nope, still not letting the ™ thing go) and act like all is solved. I'm not convinced. You see, what was really bad before about GW was the open hostility, incompetence and indifference that they displayed regarding their own ineptitude and that of the fanbase. Now, GW schmoozes that fanbase, which on the face of it looks like a reversal of attitude. But is it? Certainly, it's working well, for now at least. But I feel an argument should be made that in actuality, things aren't really better, they're actually worse. It's a difficult pill to swallow, and I tread mostly in the realms of speculation, so take that for what you will. If I'm right I'll probably be vindicated by time (seems to be my usual lot when it comes to GW anyway), and if I'm wrong nothing happens, I'll go to jail, peacefully, quietly, I'll enjoy it. Oh wait that's Ghostbusters. But surely Dim, things are looking up? Why do you think it's so bad? I'm glad you asked, poorly written segue!

Because it's hard to miss a few principle changes that have all occurred post-rebrand which are not particularly thrilling directions for many hobbyists. Above all, we're seeing an obvious shift into a new, corporate copyright-focussed aesthetic that evidently intends to replace at least most of the range if not all, and the lore has been re-jigged to allow them to deliver that change. This new design direction involves a great many cuts to the experience, reducing the complexity and nuance of the universe itself. The same will likely be the case for all of 40k's factions, who will be Flanderized into legality-conscious designs that come out of the box with less options. We're seeing a severe option cull that is most likely going to be followed by the largest sustained loss of usable units in the company's history, that will most likely, at best, be relegated to Open and Narrative play, the two modes that the vast majority of what is left of GW's fanbase are wholly indifferent to. Alongside the loss of options and lore depth the same thing happening with the games themselves, with vast arrays of features cut and removed with periodical tweaks that are largely underwhelming and detract from the amount of material gamers have to work with. Coupled with that is assurances of feedback being listened to, but with a pathetically low hit rate that seems to fail to address core issues, and at most all we've got out of it is a commitment to plastic Sisters of Battle, something GW shouldn't have needed feedback to figure out. Coupled with that is the fix it later culture of FAQs that are needed to address blatantly obvious issues that should have been spotted before printing, which is reinforced by GW's Pre-Order culture which simply assumes people will buy their stuff regardless of quality, with said quality just not being there at all.

I mean, let's face it, in many ways this is an “improvement” over the situation that got us there, so let's dwell on that for a moment, let's make sure things really are worse. GW's latter decade or so's history is a long and depressing document of corporate self-interest dominating all areas of its products to the company's overall detriment. We are still living with the consequences and damaged reputation of GW and its associated players (such as Mat Ward for instance, who destroyed his credibility indefinitely, along with arguably any hope of this company improving long term – but more on that later) further exacerbated by pathetic edicts that moved goalposts, shifting the burden of responsibility and the metrics for success. Amid this culture of corporate sales-driven abuses, we had a toxic apologist culture, eager to defend GW's interests to the detriment of any critic. This rose as a consequence of decades of backlashes from consumer-based dissatisfaction at pay-to-win mechanics, poor writing, unequal faction difference and faction favouritism. People would criticise these kinds of attitudes, and corporate apologists would make excuses, resort to ad hominem, and take refuge in the lack of any kind of GW-led narrative as a cloak from criticism themselves. The net result of all this being a toxic power-gaming culture that was driven by the idea that so long as some people could win using inequalities, the rest were simply butthurt that they couldn't do it themselves. The fanbase collapsed in on itself, fell to infighting, and GW could hobble along on a failing, anti-consumer business model for most likely a decade longer than they should have been able to.

So when people tell me that things are better now, the first thing I think about is what got us to this point, and how much of the bullshit that came with it was addressed, because here's the nub, most of it wasn't. The apologists didn't go away, they merely did what GW did, and re-branded. They took the GW attitude shift as proof they cared all along (doubtful) and that anyway, all previous criticisms are obviously going to be wrong now, they're listening! But to whom? To the people they burned? No. They're listening to the people who defended them all this time, and to some of the people who came back, many of whom could handle a game-destroying power-gaming environment but evidently drew the line at debate and “moaning”, well, at least other people's moaning. The pay-to-win hasn't exactly gone away either. Just buy knights and guard, still works well, still not addressed. It may finally stop being top tier, but most armies have one power list and only a handful stretch beyond that, and are very, very hard to counter. My local scene was astoundingly 40k-driven, and I've really seen a major decline in both interest and play. Local tournaments are dominated by Knight Soup (brainlessly so) and many local players are not exactly unhappy with 40k as... well... bored. But that scene has never really taken a major knock, simply because most of those people were meta-chasing power-gaming gits anyway, so they've not really been confronted by anything they didn't opt for. They've merely been presented with a game that offers nothing else, and even for many of those guys, that's evidently not much.

Things were never really going to change. That's not what this has all been about really. Because 8^th Edition wasn't a revolution: it was a consequence. Nothing major has changed at GW HQ. They still have the same attitudes, the same “design philosophies” (whatever bullshit that is) and the same plan: charge a lot of money for bog standard with boutique polish. This is ultimately the secret of the corporate mindset, and all GW have really done is catch up to the other corporate companies doing the same. After all, when GW openly advertises for new writers, but makes it plain that they're hiring on the basis of attitude, don't give a shit about qualifications but boast about crunch periods, that's not really an indication of any major change in direction in terms of whether GW are actually going to make great games. The bigger question is, are GW's fans? Well of course not, they're fuckwits, and we'll get to them next time. But there's an insidious motive behind the way GW acquire staff that is universal to all corporate companies. They are all ultimately interested more in attitude than ability, because ability is not something they're willing to pay for. People with qualifications, valuable qualities, and that certain X Factor: that makes for workers that expect to be well paid, that will be hard to replace, that are effectively unique. That's not what corporations like. They like people who can provide a standard service and expect base level pay. Corporations will always celebrate the bog standard, because it comes with the lowest salaries. Take a burger company. With minimal training, anybody can make a burger. But that burger can be dressed up as a valuable service, even gourmet. Boutique burger places are a thing, but labelling can be misleading. No constructor of a burger should be called a chef. They may be labelled as any kind of important craftsman, but a employee with basic training and low salary is replaceable. The company knows it, they know it. That's the point of it. GW is the same. By opening up to “feedback” they have staff who are actually just basic corporate staffers, and thus their job is straightforward, and if they can't handle it, someone else will do it. Does that look like a healthy, sustainable future business plan to you? Maybe it does. To me it's an indication of intent. They intend to mimic the computer gaming industry. New GW™ is a live service.

You may not be familiar with the Live Service model, but you're probably living under a rock if you haven't heard about the controversies surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront 2, Fallout 76, Anthem and the Loot Box Scandal. These are just the big profile gaffs. The overall result of this kind of model has been games that launch not feature complete, promise down the line fixes after responding to feedback, and promise ongoing development cycles using monetisation of every basic feature, even ones that used to be free, as fuel for this model. This model of business has been criticised heavily for effectively monetising the Beta and Early Access concepts, getting consumers to pay full price up front to help companies finish twitchy, unfinished games with the overall promise of a good, complete game down the line before they sell the next one. Sound familiar? It should. It's 8^th Edition to a tee. 8^th Edition has been focused around the area of exploiting the potential for feedback, whilst launching pretty poorly. You have the yearly updates that you pay into (Chapter Approved for 40k, General's Handbook for AoS) which monetises the idea of adjustment. Yet in spite of all this infrastructure, has much really come of it? Well, it's not a great deal more than previous editions. Sure, power difference has reduced, but 8^th Edition doesn't provide much of a solution. If anything, its exacerbated inequalities due to the game being purely down to situational modifiable and re-rollable dice rolls that retain heavy faction difference. This is why large battles don't work when you have say Orks against Imperials. Orks are just going to get easily shot off the table. 8^th Edition is effectively unfinished, basically a live beta, where rules are being tweaked as the game goes on. They rely on free feedback, but you're still paying a premium entrance fee up front at the boutique price level. Now, some may feel this kind of service is worth paying for, given that the pretence of being listened to feels so valuable after years of writer indifference in their direction, but I'd say that's the trap right there. They want you to feel like you're getting this special “service” and thus they can charge you for putting out incomplete, half-baked, not great games, with the promise of “we'll fix it later”. The keyword here (and you can see computer gaming CEOs use this term as well) is engagement. They want you interested, buying into, basically long term investing into their product. But actually, what you have is, is a service that promises more and delivers less. 8^th Edition is such a stripped down and unintuitive mess compared to 7^th Edition's core rules. You've been so busy being sold on the idea of having a say, that you can easily overlook that GW have reduced their own workload, and that's not even the worst of it.

The Live Service model acts as a shield from higher standards. It effectively allows them to lower the metric of success to match the level of their output. Their staff are, as I said earlier, unqualified, replaceable and poorly paid. Not only is this situation beneficial to GW financially in the short term, they can attempt to offset long term drawbacks with audience engagement. So basically, you the fans are expected to make up for the fact that since people like Chambers and Priestley left, and you had the likes of Ward, GW have been unable or unwilling to hire in particularly talented writers. Their plan is, most likely, if 8^th Edition fucks up, they can blame you. They'll just use this “feedback” experiment as justification for the rhetoric that the fanbase is unpleasable and you have yourselves to blame. As we'll see next time, the argument has some merit, but nonetheless, the motive is dodgy. At any rate, 8^th Edition is stripped down to the barest minimum, so they're charging you to freely give them information on how to tweak it in minor ways that will only truly matter to a very small part of GW's audience. The advantage of a stripped down game with a promise of “tweaks” allows them to increase turnover. So we're looking at a massive amount of supplements that are largely just shallow, quickly cobbled together cash-grabs. Nobody actually cares that much about Open or Narrative, so the odd bone thrown there wont be greeted with negativity nor excitement, but overall positive press just because it's extra content, and “well meaning”, if almost entirely pointless. But none of this informal, less deep game design has led to any discounts, nor any lowering of the price they attach to their brand. They charge boutique, as if they lead the way in design, but how can they lead the way in design if they don't hire the best writers? At least McDonald's burgers are affordable to the lowest common denominator. That's GW's biggest oversight in their business. They want to appeal to everyone but build an empire on high-spending whales. Like all Live Service models, GW rely to a greater extent on visuals and aesthetics than they do on anything else. They invest millions into the best presentation of their miniatures and books. I guess they figure cutting the corner with the rest of the staff will go unnoticed. Sadly, largely it does, but that itself is the consequence that leads to games like 8^th that claim to deliver more than they could ever possibly deliver.

Let us not also pretend that GW are not still the same sort of beast they have always been. They may claim to be a new company, but they're still playing the game by the old rules. They're still putting their own interests ahead of their customers, after all, in what way does removing options, units and factions from their games benefit their consumers? They don't, they benefit GW. We still have GW aggressively defending their product from anything, and they've actually got far worse with this than they ever have. Tournaments these days must be 100% Games Workshop, and Forge World units cannot be represented by GW kitbash if a official model exists (which is hilarious given that Forge World encourage kitbash for units they have yet to represent and then put models out for them with no advanced warning. I can just imagine the outrage that will be coming from HH Daemon players in a year or so). They currently make some allowances for “modelling materials” but I do wonder how long that will last. They have also recently forced a competitor to change their company name or face legal action. Warbanner are now called Para Bellum thanks to GW being arseholes. Although I suppose some of their fans are probably the kinds of dumbasses who couldn't spot three consonants being totally different, so maybe they had a point there. In terms of writing quality, in terms of anything pro consumer, we've not seen any positive change beyond a “listening agenda”, and let's face it, that's a promise, and not necessarily a reality. We are yet to see any major fruits of change that are not as easy to deliver as the abstract promise they make. I for one do not plan to pay money into the promise of improvement knowing what I know both of the level of GW's writers (the lowest of the low, I'd say, in this entire industry easily the poorest) and that of its fanbase (who I am going to insult more next time).

Overall, I still feel strongly that this is the beginning of the end, really. That is not to say that things will be done for Games Workshop, but honestly, as a force within this industry, GW remains a far larger influence than they have any right to have. They dominate on the basis of an IP they cannot sustain or improve upon, an aesthetic that they know themselves is not remotely unique and they are trying to fetishize the very idea of the hobby experience itself through “engagement” and generic promises whilst they stare upon the future that could very well leave them behind; with their capacity to join in on that future becoming an ever bleaker prospect. That's assuming Brexit doesn't snuff them out first. They remain a company past its sell by date, past its prime, and woefully out of touch, even as they appeal to feedback, to the broken community that they fucked for easy money over the past decade. This is the only course open to them, and so far they have managed to bluff people into thinking that this is a evolution brought on from choice, rather than what is more likely, a threadbare piece of spin trying desperately to hold on to the monopoly they do not deserve to have. With Kickstarters, 3D Printers and Brexit on the horizon, where many see good intentions, I merely see fear and incompetence. GW will have to continue to up their game if they want to stave off the future they're setting themselves, a luxury product doomed to shed most of its appeal, not because they make a limited effort to improve, but because they allowed over a decade to transpire before they even bothered the attempt. So far, the attempt is still merely a promise.

A promise is not good enough any more.

Chapter 4: Loose Canon: What Black Library Thinks of Their Readers (Part 2)

Part 2. Canon Bear It: The Myth of Selective Canon

So last time, we talked about Aaron Dembski-Bowden's little Apologist piece in which he singularly failed to address contradictions in Black Library Fluff by espousing two contradictory maxims as his apologetics. In this part we're going to talk about Canon in general (mostly as it pertains to Black Library), and to disparage the idea that there are any different kind of ways to handle it beyond the common sense of “Don't contradict shit, you worthless Mercenary Hacks” (which as we learned last time is more about avoiding criticism than anything else). Selective Canon, in any form, is not only bad for the Industries it is used to protect, but also not great for the writers themselves. I mean, this is GW we are talking about, so it's not as if they have a massively discerning audience to turn away, but we are without doubt living in an age where more gamers couldn't give less of a shit about what the lore of GW's works actually is. That is principally because GW and BL have done so much damage to their brand that their lore literally and figuratively scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

So before we begin, let's recap. The last time GW and BL willingly admitted their own attitude to Canon was through Aaron Dembski-Bowden. He gave voice to an edict that GW's IP Manager uses as an overall attitude to their brand. He did this poorly, and I dissected it thoroughly last time. For the purposes of this recap, we will recall Edict Version 2: “all of it's true and one of it's true” to be “fair” to the guy who spent more time writing passive aggressive shade at his own audience than he did proof reading. This edict basically leaves the door open for all forms of author and company based deniability, which I have no doubt is its principle function. It's basically moving the goalposts of what makes a successful story onto the reader. The reader is allowed their interpretation, and it's as valid as everyone else's, as it is with people who have never read any GW fluff whatsoever. The intention is to promote the idea that the only right of discernment of what is true in that setting is either nobody ever, or GW's official representatives. They can thus use this same edict as an alibi to not research; to not answer questions; to not accept criticism, and to not accept any responsibility of any kind. They can also use this edict to reinvent the entire wheel of everything to do with their universe for no reason other than to sell it again. Naturally a lot of GW fanboys think this is great. This is why they get Mat Ward, G.S. Goto and Aaron Dembski-Passive-Aggressive-Bowden.

Black Library has always had a dodgy attitude to Canon. Most of the company's heads have gone on to say that there is no canon, or the canon is in one way or another selective. Their logic is that they have too many writers to regulate that kind of continuum, and that it fits the unreliable nature of truth in the setting. Whilst these issues are true, they fail to denounce Canon. Canon comes from the Greek for “Rule” and it usually denotes the standard, the current accepted and authentic works of something. I mean, call me picky, but if you're dodging the most basic yardstick of what legitimately matters in your setting, and are thus unwilling to attach anything to it, you're giving far too much away about your opinion of your own brand. Canon can naturally mean different things to different people, and for me that's because in the modern age, Canon seems most commonly used by fans in a different manner to that of people who produce material for them. For the people in authority, they seem worried that they are being tied to a permanent contract of standards, and for the fans, it's a pragmatic way of figuring out the truth. GW and BL's response is, there isn't any. The problem with that is, that's not their call.

Obviously, the battleground over who gets to call what “The Truth” is going to be fought over. The one thing I would point out is to look at what is at stake for the victor, because that's the real secret behind these kinds of denouncements in all material written for any IP. With Black Library and GW's “approach”, they claim a Grimdark Universe legitimately gives them an alibi from responsibility of truth, and thus any determination is of equal validity but none of it is legitimate in any permanent sense. In a sense, this is also pragmatic. Fans try to pragmatically build a complete picture, the big corporation pragmatically responds: we are always going to have an unstable picture for a multitude of reasons. The trouble with this response is that they are endeavouring to create a totality of freedom from any consistency or standards, and that can just never wash. The reason is actually quite straightforward: there will always be a limited number of legitimate, logical conclusions from any of BL or GW's work, because their own material makes it impossible for it to be otherwise, because they do stick to some (not many, but enough) points of unalterable consistency. For instance, the Emperor is never going to have a gay, effeminate cousin called Eddie who lives in a bedsit in St. Ives. You could never, by the Selective Canon Edict argue categorically for or against “Cousin Eddie” in a definitive sense, but the amount of information standing against it defeats the notion more or less permanently. In essence, the idea is so absurd, that if BL had wrote a novel legitimising the existence of this character, it would immediately be denounced wholesale by pretty much the entire fucking 40k audience. Because the very idea of it is objectively absurd within that context. The corollary is thus: there are only so many valid interpretations, because we know enough to know what does and does not fit. The reason for this is because any work cannot help but have Canon. Black Library's very idea that they can decide their material has no Canon or even selective concepts of it is as absurd as it is arrogant.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I get it. Writing is hard, especially when you aren't entirely in control of the direction of the material you're writing for. But here's the nub, writers have a choice. If you're not keen on the whole idea of sharing a setting with potential quicksand if you are not tuned into the material that came before you and that surrounds you from other writers, why put yourself in that position? Attitudes like Selective Canon allow writers like this the best of both worlds: all the privilege of the existing IP and basically none of the responsibility, the implied deal of that being “You produce material that is ours and we pay you, neither of us asks too many questions about that arrangement”. That is ultimately what it's for, and that's Black Library's admission of intent. They see a market, they have the monopoly on that market, and they intend to fill it. Their desire to fill that void to cash in on it is obviously far, far greater than any conception of the actual literary value of the stuff that's there. It's cheap sales fodder, because why wouldn't it be? The alternative is setting standards, it's a bar most writers would flunk, and it's a bar you can't reasonably set, because what self-respecting writer with the talent, time and consideration to do such a thing expertly would attach themselves to such an idea? Naturally, they have a few big names, mostly Dan Abnett and Bill King, who have done this Merc Writer thing for a long, long time and do it well. It's not as if individual writers cannot approach things with their own standards (not that they do consistency, but I find it more tragic that writers of theircalibre have some level of insecurity of thinking that they need other people's IPs to put out good work).

Of course, to the Black Library writers, they find themselves concerned that Fans think “Canon” is the legitimate all-encompassing truth beyond doubt. They seem to think that the few fans who are incredibly picky and observant represent a threat worthy of a status that reinforces an artificial construct of their setting that their own writing style usually pays less heed to. Most readers though, just don't care about that (perhaps BL counts on that, but readers are not apathetic). They do care, but they care more that the writers are convincingly considerate of the setting and thoughtful about writing for it. That's why if you look at fan communities that talk about Canon and IP fodder providers like Black Library, they discuss the individual merits of particular writers from positions of trust: i.e. to what extent they are willing to trust that the particular writer gets it and thus whether they are willing to bother reading it. They are irritated by obvious signs of bias and preference for particular factions or individuals, of clear indications that little research has gone into the making of it. The trouble with claiming that only those making the content know which of it is right or true is the very fact that this is not remotely, nor has ever been true, and that is demonstrated in simple facts, such as the varied reputation of individual writers (the popularity of Dan Abnett and Sandy Mitchell versus the outright hated writers such as Ward and Goto). The audience already knows what it wants. It already knows what 40k represents, and what drives GW's consumers. That is not to say that GW's fans are always right about everything, but when you set up your entire book selling business model about assuring that basically fans are technically always wrong, you have a problem there. In fact, you just told your fanbase you're functionally irrelevant.

Human Beings by nature look for patterns. Sometimes those patterns aren't there, but we desire to understand. One of the advantages of fiction is that it offers some semblance of constructed understanding. Naturally, it can be as artistic and interesting to defy the expectation of understanding with a setting that cannot be so, but it risks a dangerous and distressing possibility. Because it's pretty hard to get invested in something you can never count on at least to a significant portion understanding. So how does GW and BL get away with this, if that's the case? Well, the answer is two-pronged. Firstly, well, they don't. Many potential readers are just turned off by the obtuse nature of the fluff, particularly its abstracted nature. Many readers have long since abandoned GW's lore simply because they're sick of waiting around for contradictions and change that generally detract more than they add to the setting. This itself has driven my disinterest and removal of investment in the lore. I am tired of reading something principally handed to writers I do not respect, trust nor appreciate. Thus, I'm out. But in a way they do get away with it, because their opinion on what is or is not Canon does not remotely matter.

I do find it kind of cute that Black Library has a suite of writers who get behind the Selective Canon argument, given that one of the most well-known semantic think-pieces on literature is Roland Barthes' coinage of Death of the Author. It's so well-known that it eclipses the rest of his work, and has made its way into public consciousness. I find it rather depressing that writers would be fine deciding for everyone else what their takeaway from any media they produce is, even if said audience ask for it. Because their opinion could not matter less, and not just because connotative interpretation has the capacity not just to see conscious authorial intent but also unconscious authorial meditation; readers themselves are the same sorts of human beings as the ones who write this shit, and they form their own ideas because why wouldn't they. The only perplexing thing of this whole enterprise is why there is even any need to denounce Canon at all, when its concept is a metaphysical impossibility as anything rigid in any form, and any setting? Once again, I fall back to motives. A corporate company hates criticism, writers hate criticism. Writers hate getting harassed for a handful of sentences they wrote when they were sleep deprived trying to push this horrendous beast up some more words to meet that fucking publishing deadline that was entirely off the cuff to add a bit of flavour, and more keenly to satisfy the editor, or whatever overseer BL uses, if any. But when your endeavour to address the handful of people who pick up on minor issues like that ends up fundamentally undermining the very medium you write for, was that small bit of passive aggressive “We don't do Canon here, because fuck you guys” …well, was it worth it?

What is most tragic about Black Library is its irrelevance. It is the only source of additional, detailed narrative within the Games Workshop brand, or at least, it was, and now it spends more time as a prospect for the miniscule handful of people who bother with Black Library at all, which is actually a minority within that gaming circle as far as I can see. It has its fans of course, I'm sure plenty of the literature BL has is literature enough in at least the way Twilight is literature, but that also highlights that any old shit can have a big audience and quality is not immediately assured by the number of eyes that read it. Whilst it is difficult to discern precisely whether Black Libary does well or not, I can't particularly see them basically removing themselves from the standard of standard acceptability doing them many favours amongst anyone worried about parting with £8 for some entertaining fodder. Maybe they're onto a winner, not worrying about it, but they do seem to spend a lot of time chafing about criticism and being denounced for not getting things right for a bunch of writers who promote the idea that there is no right or wrong in their circle. But there is a right or wrong. Black Library exists because a fandom exists. They exist to give that fandom more of what they already like. That's your Canon right there Black Library. Go on, you go and put out a novel that violates some of the basic expectations of what 40k is, and you tell me all about how you're above that shit.

Oh wait, you did. It was C.S. Goto's short, unpopular career.

Well, that's unfortunate for you guys.

40k has Canon. That's just tough. You mercenary writers need to grow the fuck up and do your fucking job.

Chapter 3 Loose Canon: What GW and Black Library Thinks of Their Readers (Part 1)

"Quick Admiral Dembski-Bowden. The Rebels are using FORBIDDEN LOGIC!"

Note: This started off life as one article, but I had so much to say this is now a two-parter.

Part 1: Loose Canon

We need to get serious for a moment. Well, you don't, I do. This one may be a little esoteric, a bit specialist, a bit... picky. But I do feel it important, probably more important than any other part of this series (not that this takes much, but still). So, this chapter here is something from my more earnest interests, because it cuts to the core of where I am now, not where I have been. You could legitimately criticise me for being caught up in something I have chose to abandon. I am in effect pissing into a wheelhouse I used to be in. But this time, I'm sitting in my own, and GW, and Black Library in particular are pissing into mine. This actually cuts to the nub of something I'm actually still prepared to fight over: what is an author, and to whom do they owe their work, if anyone? This could be worryingly close to a serious conversation. Fortunately for me, GW and BL have made this topic a complete joke. So we're back to present form. This will be pretty long, so I will break it into sub-headings in case people want to read it in bits, or skip bits they're not interested in.

“The Mercenary Writer” (Some General Background and Statement of Intent)

Writing is a funny old endeavour. It has many layers to it, many outlets. The core principle of Writing is always the same: to appease an audience of largely strangers using concepts and devices as old as that of society itself, in order to teach, impress and/or entertain. Whilst the origins, and ultimate agreed forms of writing (especially stories) are simple and limited in type, in the modern age they aren't quite so straightforward. Ignoring the various forms writing can take since we moved beyond merely the printing press, there are also differing levels of agenda, and also different levels of story. We live in an increasingly savvy and interconnected world; a world built upon stories we love written by writers we adore, to the extent that some of us (including people who don't share such adorations) write stories that are directly connected to those stories. Stories can transcend being mere stories. They become IP, and IP is, apparently, negotiable.

I, like most card carrying geeks, feel deep love for, interest in and obsession with a multitude of IPs (Intellectual Properties, worlds or universes owned by a company or estate). Thus I'm familiar with those worlds, and always hungry for more. But the reality of such properties is that much of the material I could read is likely to come from another hand to that of its creator, for both good and ill. This particular rant-post (and it is little else) such as it is, is not to bemoan the work of what I am choosing to call “The Mercenary Writer” and their ilk. But I think it is worth dwelling on where these people are in this industry, what particular excuses they make for themselves, and what perspective they need to accept. Because as a writer of my own IP, I am about to be deeply bitter and scathing. I'm saying that upfront just so we're clear. We all have agendas, and mine is that many of these Mercenary Writers are lacking in perspective. Cool? Cool.

As I said, I'm a writer. I've been working on two principle IPs of my own in one form or another for over a decade. I'm a perfectionist, so sue me. I'm also an avid reader, and consumer of most geeky kinds of media. I find that we as an amorphous, massively divided community are on the receiving end of a lot of shenanigans from particular (usually corporate) interests; who are happy to exploit a noticeably devoted audience to make easy money with often pathetically low standards. I can already anticipate the Business Apologetics I am likely to receive for this opening. But save that for a moment. Let's just assume for a second that such business interests are legitimate enough to pass without comment. Whether or not companies are right to pursue what is from at least a dozen or so legitimate perspectives frequently dodgy, is it really right for such representatives to exploit those situations but also moan about the consequences of those actions?

My argument here is, categorically, no.

To my mind, the Mercenary writer is in a position of privilege. They benefit from a number of distinct advantages over other writers and too many of them espouse regret of having to deal with the consequences that come from gaining those advantages. Most Writers after all are not instantly granted access to a pre-existing audience, receptive to the core tone, genre and styling of that writer's work (even if it detracts somewhat from the usual fare for that IP). Nor are they free from the need to do so much world-building: even authors that base their work in our world either now or in history can often end up producing more constructs necessary of their inventiveness than some of the Mercenary Writers writing for IP. As a writer I cannot emphasise how difficult it is to build a world of your own, so having a pre-built one is a tempting thought. So too is already having an audience, skipping months to years of angst and fear about ones own output. Why still persist then, with your own stuff? Simply, freedom. The freedom to tell my own tales, to have the world I want, no compromises, no limits. Because, surely, there must be some limits right? It seems some Mercenary Writers actually disagree. They're victims, the poor things. Victims of petty, hateful sweaty, angry geeks who sit in their mothers basement spotting mistakes. Spotting inconsistencies. Noticing complete fabrications that make no sense in the pre-existing world. Oh woe is them! Shall we help? Well, not exactly...

You see, I don't actually think Mercenary Writers should be bitching like children about the consequences of the privilege they manipulate and directly benefit from to pursue the same craft as everyone else. Nobody is stopping them from writing. No one is stopping them from using someone else's IP. But here's the thing. Criticism is part of the business. So it is rather tiresome when big corporations use mouthpieces to put forward apologetics just to avoid some criticism. As a writer myself, I can't actually imagine a practice within the world of writing itself, beyond moral depravity, that is more odious, sinister or indeed damaging than denying your own responsibilities.

So, let's have an example. For that, I have Grade A Gold. “Loose Canon”.

We're All Right and None of You Are

I didn't really want to single out any individual writers or companies when I initially wrote this for my Non-GW Blog. Not that I have the clout to send a shit-storm in any person's direction, but I like to avoid making things personal. However, Games Workshop (and principally its literary satellite, Black Library) have represented what I feel is one of the most ridiculous attitudes to canon and continuity that I have ever encountered, and a particular writer decided to be a mouthpiece for that attitude: Black Library's Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote a blog-post a while ago detailing it, called “GrimDark II: Loose Canon”. This article, such as it is, has since disappeared off the net, but it can easily be recovered and read. I've provided a URL to the article below, pop it into an Archive Website (such as Wayback Engine) and you'll be able to read it in full. I invite you to do so, as Dembski-Bowden tried to deal with a number of the issues I'm going to raise to the bits I quoted, so I would rather you read those so that I'm not straw-manning. I just found most of his excuses pretty feeble, and the few I have time for I will deal with either here or in Part 2. Anyway, here's the offending bit that bothers me, and this is common both of GW's overall attitude to their material, and similar to many other big companies that hire a multitude of writers to make cheap sales fodder for them:

“It’s all real, and none of it’s real.”                                                                                                  One of the great mistakes made by almost every fan of Warhammer 40,000 is to take the canonical rules of another license, and crowbar them into 40K. Usually, it’s an unconscious assumption based on a mix between common sense and Star Wars, which is a combination you don’t expect to see everyday. It also works about as well as you’d think.
...
I got it wrong myself, right up until I was in a meeting with the company’s Intellectual Property Manager – a situation I find myself in several times a year, as part of the Horus Heresy novel series team. When I was specifically asking about canon, he replied with something I’ve tried to take to heart: “It’s all real, and one of it’s real.”

First, I'd like to take this moment to congratulate Mr Dembski-Bowden for trying to tackle the issue of contradictions found in the IP he contributes to by providing two contradictory versions of the maxim he has chosen as his apologetics, and doing so within 4 paragraphs (two of which I've omitted for reasons of focus). With that exception I will try not to throw much shade his way. But if you read the article you can probably guess why I might be right not to pull many punches. Now, to regain the impersonal approach as best as I can, I am going to concentrate on the two maxims (as who knows which is right) and take issue with those, because they are utterly ridiculous in virtually every possible way. The obvious way being that essentially, this hand-waves the need to write well with consistency in the setting and to research it well, which for Mercenary Writing is basically the point. I will note that Dembski-Bowden tries to argue that this maxim does not excuse that (reading a lot of Black Library makes me question the idea that Black Library shares Dembski-Bowden's convictions, especially with the likes of C.S. Goto still a name on Black Library bookshelves), but if you need to take an aside to say “this maxim doesn't cover these two obvious corollaries, but trust me, doesn't undermine them” then your maxim is weak.

So why use such a maxim? Well, because geeks are devoted. If you sit in a position of authority, any maxim from that position of authority will get enough Internet Warriors parroting it as an absolute edict, whether it was intended as one or not. The originator of the maxim can always say that wasn't the intention (which is as easy to say as the maxim, and as easy as the things you say the maxim doesn't undermine and as likely to be completely untrue), but if you're in a position of power over geekdom, especially when professing to be “one of us” to that geekdom (as Dembski-Bowden does in his article) you should be savvy enough to know the responsibility involving edicts. Edicts are dangerous in fan communities. Because they often start as suggestions, and they end up often being empowered as holy writ and used regardless of their logical or academic worth.

I've seen GW Edicts used to effectively undermine linguistics or even more simply the act of human interpretative reading in favour of overtly literal interpretation because of the clumsy use of three words (Rules As Written). Stripped often of context and meaning, they are easy to misuse. That is not entirely the fault of the author, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't know better. It also means if you're going to use a Maxim, make sure that if you check anything in your article that you write (especially one which takes shots at parts of the fandom, regardless of whether you see those shots as playful or with actual venom behind them), it's probably the wording of that maxim you wish to espouse and any times you repeat it, lest you write multiple distinctly different things.

So, let's deconstruct those maxims and poke fun at them.

“All of it's true and none of it's true”

This is the most pernicious. It entirely undermines the idea of truth by rendering it moot. That isn't entirely an issue in universes with unreliable narrators, but take note that this (and the other maxim) ultimately undermines the role of the reader. You are not trusted to discern, to argue or to be confident in any truth you are presented with. You are merely told to distrust and embrace all, which is a self-defeating fallacy that tries to have it both ways. Let me put it another way: any lore interpretation, any take-away you have counts, except when it counts. You are invited to believe as you like, but your perspective is as worthless as your time, and any effort you spend trying to discuss or debate any aspect of it can be easily and entirely undermined by any one individual pointing to this maxim. It's essentially boasting that as a material to help you understand that universe (and note it is a fictional universe designed for a hobby of which part of that hobby is adding to it) it is entirely worthless. This is the equivalent of getting your car crushed at a scrapyard just so nobody scratches the paintwork.

“All of it's true and one of it's true”

This is probably the “correct” edict, given that of the two it is less stupid. It is still, however, as an edict, useless to the reader and renders them incapable of discernment and as a passive agent in the act of being talked to with all of the conviction of a snake oil salesman selling a homeopathic pill. Like the homeopathic pill, it is largely empty of meaning or usefulness, so watered down and pointless that it renders nothing useful or empowering to the user, whilst endeavouring to reassure the user of its worth. Whilst containing, at best, trace amounts of it. Some Black Library books are also probably banged by a leather drum too. It has a better affect than reading them. Now, this at least admits the truth is out there. How generous. But it offers no solution to figuring it out, and one could argue it exists purely to tell you that you have no right to decide which it is. I happen to feel that this is the intention, and regardless, it dangles the promise of a commitment to consistency it has every intention of not honouring.

Both are problematic for similar reasons. Principle among which is how intensely self-serving they are. They both exist to give the writer an alibi from their own responsibilities, and no matter how earnestly Dembski-Bowden claims he takes those responsibilities seriously, he has to explain those in his own words, and I just frankly don't believe that a writer who sees fit to provide an alibi from an obvious issue is that interested in those responsibilities beyond face value. It doesn't help that Dembski-Bowden goes to great lengths to point to obvious interpretive differences as the reason behind the need for the maxim. Why is this an issue? Well, there are a few reasons. Firstly, that demonstrates that no one is actually that interested in going “Right, we should probably agree on a logic behind how all these things work” but even beyond that (as for some reasons that's not always possible anyway) but these obvious examples are used as easy shoe-ins, straightforward “No arguments there” reasoning. But is a maxim really needed to explain authorial interpretative differences?

No. Here's why.

That is already an easy enough argument to make. The problem is not that authors have different views about how some things work leading to contradictions in rare or even moderately common cases nor is that somehow unreasonable. It's perfectly understandable. But using such reasoning for something much wider in scope forms the linchpin of something insidious. By using these issues as justification, it saves Dembski-Bowden from going “Yeah, all those writers who don't bother to research and don't care? We aren't firing or denouncing them. We just have this maxim so that you can use it to pretend they don't count any more...” whilst essentially being there precisely because of issues like bad or lazy writing so much more than the minor issues he lists. And whilst these small details may seem petty, it also doesn't change the fact that the contradictions are there and still happened. One has to ask the obvious corollary: does the existence of minor contradictions in storytelling justify a wholesale denouncement of the concept of canon?

Once again, the answer is no, and once again, the denouncement is entirely self-serving. The people who make the contradictions give themselves an alibi, merely at the cost of the value of the whole endeavour and everything it stands for. It provides grounds for undermining debate of the entire process and ultimately its only point of consistency is that it consistently alleviates the one source of responsibility, authority and blame, of blame and responsibility, retaining only the authority bit, naturally. Its self-serving nature betrays it from any iota of being well-meaning. They know you're going to find problems in the fluff. Here is an edict detailing how they'd rather make a dismissive excuse than accept those contradictions as an issue to one day deal with, or simply to accept. They'd rather pull the whole thing down around them than admit they are wrong sometimes.

They are basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just to make sure they can't be accused of not giving a baby a proper bath. Whether you take my perspective or Dembski-Bowden's is for you to decide. If you take mine, I urge you not to buy Black Library. Their attitude undermines the value of their own fiction.

A Few Quick Rebuttals

This is basically it for Part 1, but I want to deal with a few of the potential issues brought on from my focus on this edict:

Am I Straw-Manning?

Maybe. I wont deny that I gloss over Dembski-Bowden's attempts to discuss nuance around the topic. But the fact is that he argues that fluff is so open to interpretation that it needs a maxim that he himself seems to have taken a not entirely obvious interpretation from to regulate whether people are right to be ignored about differing authorial interpretation (which also conveniently acts as an alibi for awful and canon-dismissive writers like C.S. Goto). Ultimately, the position appears to have less to do with genuine issues and how they are addressed and more the fact that GW's writers don't like criticism and rather than taking the bridge between producer and consumer for granted and exploring the nuance intelligently, they decided to just pull the bridge down to avoid the need for it. I'd describe the apologetics that GW use for in-universe facts as a shitshow, and I find that shitshow only further exacerbated both by Dembski-Bowden's efforts to explain it away and by the gullible fanboys who bought it.

Why Now? This Article Is Offline!

Writers can hold very long grudges. Particularly when it comes to things about writing that other writers do or say that rankles you, especially when those bastards are more successful than you. But I have more pressing reasons than authorial jealousy. I happened to notice within the recent Ork Codex discussion of their fluff in a style that clearly suggests that this edict is still the way GW views presentation of its own lore. So actually, this is very relevant, and their reluctance to enter the public arena to have it challenged since is as telling as most of their other actions.

But... But... Unreliable Narrator... Etc

Naturally this edict also suits the setting that 40k inhabits. On the face of it, this kind of attitude makes sense, until you look at it closely. Because it is pretty damn obvious that they aren't remotely consistent with it. For one, just look at the style they adopt. If they really embraced the idea of this kind of artificial mystery, there would be more scenes we weren't privy to. To use but one example, we are told, clearly, what happened to Ghaz when he retreated from Armageddon. How he is saved by intervention from Mork (and perhaps Gork). Why the detail? This also belies a major problem with this edict. If all of it could be lies, why worry about presentation? And indeed, that's part of the problem. Do they really believe it's all propaganda or do they just hide behind that excuse? It seems to be a much more commonly adopted position when talking about the origins of Orks, or the nature of Xenos, but when it comes to Space Marines, we have full details, biographies, dates and dialogue. If GW always played by their own rules, and used it thoughtfully, this would be relevant. It's pretty obvious however that it's just pulled out when people ask questions.

This is it for Part 1. In Part 2 we're going to talk more about Canon, and how Black Library's edicts on the matter are not only irrelevant, but erroneous. We'll conclude why Loose Canon is so damaging and why they need to readjust their attitude. Not that they will, of course, but they should.

******************

P.S. Here's a link to the Dembski-Bowden article used in this rant:

http://www.bscreview.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/ (you will need to use an archive service like Wayback Engine to look at it though)

P.P.S. Aaron, if you ever read this, I used your surname 15 times. Typed them out individually, went through the document 3 times to make sure I'd spelled it right each time. You didn't even bother to check the two times you used one edict. So maybe next time leave the sass about your own fucking audience out of your corporate shill pieces, and maybe they wont think you're a douche. Peace.