Sunday, January 1, 2012

Musings #1: Loose Canon

Hopefully this will be the first in a series of similar posts. I will be doing these whenever I see something that gets me thinking, so I'll write it down to preserve my thoughts.

If you, the reader, are familiar with the Black Library books, you are probably familiar with the Aaron Dembski-Bowden. If you are not, first I wish to know where the heck you've been, then I'd direct you to start reading his books right quick. ADB, as he is sometimes known, is a rising star at the Black Library, and I firmly believe that, with time, he may grow to rival even Dan Abnett, if he hasn't already. He's mainly known for his Night Lords series (Soul Hunter, Blood Reaver, and the upcoming Void Stalker), but he's also written a book for Grimaldus of the Black Templars, a Horus Heresy book or two, and he's also busy writing a Grey Knights book.

On his blog, ADB posted a link to an entry he had written on Boomtron, titled Grimdark II: Loose Canon, and this is what really got me thinking. ADB gives his perspective on why some interpretations of 40k can be so wildly divergent. To use the mildest example, Weapon A is depicted as firing in a certain way, but in another piece of writing it is depicted with a completely different firing mechanism. Some of the choicest bits in ADB's post:

Secondly, like any publisher, Black Library releases work from a host of different people, each with their own perceptions and preferences. Because of the sheer amount of material released, conflicts arise between what seem like established facts. One author has a weapon firing one way, and another author describes its mechanics completely differently. Is there an official stance? No, on a lot of in-universe stuff, there’s usually not. Interpretation and imagination within the framework is the name of the game. The issue is when people consider that a flaw, not a feature. It’s supposed to be an open invitation to creative freedom, but instead it’s often disparaged as a way to hide mistakes or lore clashes.

....

As a personal example, when describing the retinal/eye lens displays in Space Marine helmets, my ideas for what a soldier can see and do with his HUD are fairly divergent from most other authors’ descriptions. I can show lore to back my viewpoint up, and they can bring lore to highlight theirs. I can also wax poetic on why I think my version is better, and makes for a better touch in a story, blah blah blah. I don’t see it as a problem, but many fans loathe this kind of thing. Luckily, I’ve never had any complaints about this exact example, but I’m being nice and not naming any authors who do fall prey to that kind of feedback.

Essentially, any difference is immediately considered a deviation. Any contradiction is automatically seen as a mistake. Although I’ve been intensely fortunate with fan feedback, and my reviews are most definitely on the kinder and more favourable side of the wall, I’ve seen a few mentions where someone flat-out says I’ve got a specific detail wrong, purely because they’ve chosen to cite a variant source as canon. It’s, shall we say, “frustrating,” but I don’t blame anyone for thinking it. It’s a complicated situation.

...

I’ve read 40K novels that categorically violate my opinions and perceptions of how 40K works, and I have no trouble ignoring them afterwards. Similarly with some design studio sourcebooks, if I come across an idea that I find patently, uh, “in conflict” with my views (there’s some diplomacy for you), I’ll just ignore it and try not to write about it.

...

I’m being dead serious, here. Yes, it can be considered a mark of IP laziness, and yes, I’m not blind to the fact that 20-30 years ago, a lot of 40K’s core concepts were referential half-jokes thrown around by amateur game designers, rather than the underpinnings of a more classic sci-fi setting “envisioned” by ivory tower artistes. But the loose framework has allowed three decades of fresh canon to flood in, filling in the details without necessarily feeling too constrained by what came before. Even as someone who fiercely cleaves to canon at every opportunity, I’m constantly surprised by the sheer amount of white space left open to explore and set up shop.

So basically, the gist of what ADB is saying is it's okay for some versions of 40k to be a little different, or even very different.

I think what makes 40k fans (or any fans of anything, really) so mad is that we want Weapon A to always be Weapon A, firing bullets with a value of B, that always result in the effect C. We want complete consistency across all versions and mediums, we want a sense of order amidst all this madness. And there's nothing wrong with that really. We all want a common touchstone, a common pool of ideas so that no matter who writes what, the ideas will usually match up.

Unfortunately, I think that's the most we can hope for. 40k is such a huge franchise with so many fans, and each fan tends to have his own vision or interpretation of what 40k is supposed to be like. I love 40k, I love the lore, but there's some things I really don't like, and some other guy may absolutely love the things I don't like.

To use an obvious example (and get in a cheap shot), I despise Matt Ward and I despise what he's done to defile the 40k canon. So, I'm just going to ignore most of what's he's written. But another fan may actually like what he's written; I can rage at him, call him a headcase and whatnot, but that's his right. Nobody's right or wrong; it's called an opinion. Everyone has a right to enjoy 40k, in the manner or interpretation he's comfortable with.

When I'm done writing the Dark Swords (if I'm ever done), I will have created my own corner of the 40k canon. I want to make sure that my little corner is as consistent as possible with the greater 40k franchise, but I may also feel the need to put in some things, change some things, and ignore other things, so that my little 40k corner makes sense to me. Every time a new writer draws up a DIY Chapter or contributes some other piece of writing, they are setting up their own little slice of the 40k "pie". The most we can hope for is that each piece is roughly the same size and looks roughly the same. Beyond that, every writer and fan has the right to make little changes so that his slice of the 40k pie makes sense to him.

No comments:

Post a Comment