Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Changes

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources

2,812 bytes added, 09:37, 15 April 2020
m
Why the term "Canon" or "Canonicity" is problematic
*fictional events as described by different protagonists from their "own" points of view
*often non-distinction between (fictional) "facts" and "legends/ mythology/ rumours" etc.
*[[Games Workshop]] authors (past and present) sometimes making statements in a private capacity that are then picked up by some readers as "official"
*and many other potential sources for confusion and contradictions
 
This (non-exhaustive) list of potential sources of problems should make it quite clear why it is impossible to reconcile all material ever published by [[Games Workshop]] (and subsidiaries and license holders, further on simply and collectively referred to as "Games Workshop") into one stringent and logical continuity. Add to that the inevitable tendency of readers/ "fans" to consciously or unconsciously add their own spin, interpretation, extrapolation or sometimes plain made-up elements and the problem that most users of the internet do not bother to actually check if something is a verifiable fact or simply a rumour or even lie sold as fact and the mess is complete.
 
[[Games Workshop]] itself has not been very forthcoming with any helpful statements on this conundrum. But then again why would they? As a company they certainly have no interest to limit themselves by a too strict corset of which parts of their own intellectual property they will use at any given moment - or not. And even if they do not use certain elements at a given time, who is to say said elements might not come in handy at some point in the future? So from a commercial point of view this is a very logical approach even if it is one that can vex readers.
 
There are nevertheless some insightful statements by [[Games Workshop]]on the subject matter. In an older version of their FAQ section [[Black Library]] included the following answer to the question if their material was "canonical":
 
{{QuoteBox
|quote = ''"Is Black Library fiction canon background material?
The BL editors work with the GW studios to keep the fiction the way that it should (very hard might I add! - RK), though due to the sheer volume of detail involved there can be the odd discrepancy here and there. If you want to consider anything "canonical" then both BL fiction - be it novel, graphic novel, art or background book - and GW fiction - be it White Dwarf, Codex, Army book or rulebook - are such.
 
Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history ...
'''''[https://web.archive.org/web/20080519190316/http://forum.blpublishing.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=71 Black Library:FAQ] ''(saved archive page, dated 19 May 2008, last accessed 15 April 2020)'
|align = center
|width = 75em
}}
 
 
 

Navigation menu