Differentiating Evils

Image is Blorbius Scrunklius,
by tumblr user yestheantichrist.

date: 24/05/2025

The typical narrative role of evil is deeply tied to that of antagonism, or challenge. Antagonists, who we often term "villains" in virtue of playing that role, provide contrast with protagonists, who we often term "heroes" just in virtue of being protagonists. By differing they oppose.

This creates difficulties in settings where everyone is evil! One risks sameyness and thereby indifference on the part of the audience. For one thing, the stakes seem low if it's bad whoever wins or however the protagonist's challenge is resolved. This was in some sense the topic of my previous post. But today I am going to focus more on character motivations, because in addition to the story seeming to have no stakes any one might care about, it's also just boring to watch a bunch of clones of each other differing only in some arbitrary insignificant fashion battling it out to see... what? Which clone is left standing at the end, I guess? You don't care about the conflict in part because you don't care about them, all the worse if the naturally unpleasant nature of evil makes you dislike spending narrative time with them in the first place.

To get a handle on this, I will contrast a failed attempt to generate character diversity in a setting where everyone is fundamentally good. Star Trek: Discovery. While not literally everyone is Good Really in the Trekiverse, the clear emphasis of the show is on an optimistic and humanistic vision which leans heavily in that direction. There's a good reason Trek is often taken to be the contrast setting with that of 40k (though I personally think recent writers in the Trek franchise have lost of that, to the franchise's detriment). The writers of Discovery tried to honour that (which I do think is to their credit), but in a way that I think is interesting ultimately precisely because it failed.

Discovery inherits from certain strands of conteporary leftwing thought (again, not intrinsically a problem for them to be borrowing from leftwing ideas, perfectly appropriate given the origins of Star Trek) a kind of therapy-speak view of evil. People's "healthy" mental habits dispose them to good and mutually coooperative and beneficial behaviour, tolerant and accepting of one another. However, "trauma" of various sorts can get in the way of that, creating opposition and antagonism. But since people can be healed through various means, it is possible for them to "unlearn" whatever habits of mind lead to their antagonistic or unhelpful behaviours. The natural character arc is thus from one of oppositional or vicious behaviour to cooperative and virtuous behaviour via a process of socially supported self-work and healing.

Now, this does square the circle of getting opposition and antagonism while maintining a humanistic commitment to (almost) everyone being good really. But it does so at the expense of positing a shared end-goal to every character arc! Everyone is evolving to being the same person; a kind of emotional-sage who goes around giving therapy-speak monologues to characters at a less advanced stage of their self-work journey. They are insufferable. It's also just boring because it ends up regenerating the exact "what if everyone is the same and there's no conflict" narrative problem the trauma was meant to solve. And, in fact, the writers seem aware of that as they keep introducing new characters with their own traumas just to give them some spice... only for the same character arc to eventually render them the same emotional-sage everyone else already is.

Let's step back and think about this in slighlty more abstract terms. What went wrong here? I think it is this: diversity of characters is a good thing for narrative. A setting-constraint wherein everyone shares the same moral-alignment eliminates an axis on which one can diversify one's characters. What is more, this particular axis is the means by which antagonism is introduced into stories, so it is especially narratively damaging to be hindered on this front. To that end the writers introduced a device by which characters can be temporarily evil. But the nature of this device is it made the natural "good state" for every single character to progress into the same.

(My one political aside on this is: I think contemporary political discourse effectively hid this problem from the writers and made it harder to solve. I suspect they vociferously disagree that they failed to make the characters diverse, because after all the characters are all demographically very diverse - and in ways previous Star Trek shows hadn't managed, even. And what's more, a great many online critics of Discovery were haters who focussed on just that diversity - complaining about a black woman having so prominent a role, or the presence of trans characters. So it would seem to all involved that in ways that matter to people, the show has achieved character diversity. But I think all this is superficial - bigots are in essence fetishists, obsessed with surface properties of characters. Demographic diversity ultimately does not matter if eveyrone has the same personality. Generally what I saw in discussion around the show is a debate about "diversity" of the sort I am used to playing out among the professional middle classes of which I am a member. There are some people who think filling an environment with aesthetic variants on Educated Urbanite Professional is an interesting diversity, and they counter-posed by people who think what really matters is we do less of that and instead add some people who absolutely loathe some subset of the former to the mix. The first lot are boring and the second lot hateful, but their heated opposition to each other and collective dominance of the political spectrum makes it all seem very significant to those involved. I disagree.)

So how does 40k deal with its version of the problem in a setting where everyone is evil? I think sometimes by basically doing almost exactly the same thing. The same in that - we get a list of psychological traits which stand in for protagonist morality; check the wiki for how many Space Marine chapters are noted for putting Honour and Duty above all. They stand in huge contrast, of course, with those who put Duty and Honour first. And needless to say all value Brotherhood. Whereas chaos is treated as (or highly co-extensive with) literal insanity very often, which manifests in a stock set of contrasting character traits - villains are faithless and conniving and ever on the verge of betraying one another. (Fans talk about "the chaos insanity debuff" as being the narrative reason chaos hasn't just won in the setting as a whole.) So we get a basic contrast between the relatively morally neutral "being a reliable teammate" constrated with the definitely evil "being a back-stabbing bastard", where the latter is quite literally insane.

So like Discovery we get a pscyhological theory of good vs evil, with the evil side coded as a kind of mental-disorder, and the good side basically amounting to traits that make you a better team player. The differences are that since 40k is grimdark rather than optimistic: 1) even the good traits are very compatible with being all things considered evil, and 2) the evil people don't get better, in fact it's far more common to see the good people corrupted and become more like the bad people. Still, a cooperative mental traits theory of the good vs insanity as uncooperative behaviour theory of evil. And this allows for antagonism even in a setting where everyone is basically the same on the moral alignment chart. And I think it leads to the same problem: the protagonists are basically interchangeable, because the work of the moral-alignment chart in generating antagonism has been replaced by a psychological theory of The Good Type and why it would fight with The Bad Type... and, well, now there is a single Good Type that we are going to have spend a whole bunch of time.

(Caveats: this isn't always done badly. For one thing, quite simply not all stories do this. There are lots of Black Library stories! For another, since 40k often has one-off books or short stories, they don't run into the same issues that Discovery did about having to continually reup the characters to go through the same arc. You can just drop them and move on. For instance, the story Storm of Iron is a textbook case of what I describe in how it contrasts the protagonists and antagonists, yet it is pretty great because it can all come to a satisfying conclusion and leave (most) of the characters behind for future books. For a third thing, it is often literally just funny - albeit I am not always sure in a fashion that was intended - to have characters constantly saying "Brother! Aid me brother!" or some such absurdist pseudo-macho stuff, in a way I do not find being earnestly lectured at in online-therapy-speak funny, so it's just a bit less insufferable. And for a fourth, some of the texts in universe do what I shall recommend below - the Tau and the Necrons' especially actually allow for it, since their goals can be a bit orthogonal to the central Imperium Vs Chaos conflict. And it's no coincidence that some of the best fiction in the setting focuses on them. Finally, just for fun factor the writing of the orks often has a bit of cheeky meta-textual awareness about this, where the whole joke of their having two gods embodying their two ideal types of being Brutal, but Kunnin' versus being Kunnin', but Brutal respectively lets them play with this very fact in universe.)

The solution, I think, is inherent to this analysis of the problem. I think we should depsychologise the moral alignment chart. You need to allow for genuine diversity in theories of what would be good or evil, so you can have conflict among genuinely good/evil characters (not just where one is mistaken or unhealthy or what not) who may have associated entirely different psychological types. In my own little way I am trying that here by trying to flesh out a Khornite psychology that is nothing at all like the crazed-barbarian-bloodthirster that the canon typically portrays. What makes that possible is that the nega-utilitarian values of the Sherden Pact could be subscribed to for various reasons, all obviously evil, but all compatible with very different psychological profiles from that of the crazed-barbarian-bloodthirster. To make this possible you have to think that there are genuinely multiple ways of being good/evil - which I think might be controversial in the case of the good, but in pulp fiction everyone is evil settings like that of 40k is actually very doable.

So, even in settings where everyone is meant to share a moral alignment, an end to psychologising conflict! Bring back ideological conflict!

Grim Dark Complaints

Image is a panel from
There Will Come Soft Rains.
Story by Ray Bradbury.
Artist unknown to me
(source).

date: 15/02/2025

Despite (obviously) being a fan of Grim Dark as a genre I think I get why people complain about it. This Trope Talk captures some of the central complaints in ways that are no doubt more fun than my ramblings, so if you want just give that a listen.

My sense is there are three main complaints about grimdark, two of which are largely just about the genre often being done badly and one of which is more of a core complaint:

1. The first "frequently done badly" subtrope of grimdark is that people turn it into just misery porn. There is just nothing and no one worth rooting for in a grimdark world. If you are not careful with that it can make it easy to simply disengage with the setting -- it's not more tragic if everyone is a bastard then gets shot, it's less than it would be if some of those people were actually good people I might not want to die. Which is to say, if one is too thoroughly consistent with the premise of hopelessness then you simply ride it off a cliff, and the audience doesn't care when the bad stuff happens. And since it's only bad stuff happening in this kinda failure-mode, that really just amounts to the audience not caring about your story.

2. The second "frequently done badly" subtrope is that some authors (and this is where I think it overlaps with the edgy teen complaint you've heard) think that grimdark is somehow inherently more "serious" and realistic and grown-up than more hopeful settings. And... like... basically this is just silly. There's no actual reason to think this, at all, it's really just a childish view of the world. One has graduated from the optimism of morality tales told to infants we are trying to teach to share, and just kinda assumed that the real world must be the total opposite of them because you encountered the first bit of nuance. I have seen this attitude among (as noted, tbf, frequently younger) grimdark fans. But sometimes they grow up and start writing for previously hopeful settings, which they turn into self-serious joyless absurdities! Witness much of comics in the 90s. So I think people then find that attitude irritating, and react against the grimdark tropes they associate the attitude with.

3. The more intrinsic actual issue with grimdark is that it by its nature makes it difficult to write traditionally compelling narratives. There's a reason tropes are tropes, a reason the classics are classics. Good triumphing over evil, a satisfying pay off to the trials and tribulations characters have been through, the light at the end of the tunnel promising something better; people do, in fact, actually like that. And grimdark genuinely makes it difficult to work those things into stories, by the nature of what it means for a setting! So it's legit genuinely just harder to give audiences stuff they will generally like if you write for this genre.

So that's my take. Grimdark forces writers to make more difficult narrative choices which are not as satisfying (or, at least and more carefully/accurately: harder to make as satisfying) as many traditional plot elements. But it has also often been done poorly with some more unforced errors, in particular in ways that make it harder to invest in its characters or stakes on the one hand, and on the other generate resentment against smug nihilistic authors with fundamentally childish worldviews.

GrimDark Economics

Image is Balthasar Gelt
artist unknown (source)

date: 10/02/2025

Inspired by one of my valued guest authors alerting me to an amusingly Khornite resposne to economic collapse by Trump, I decided to write a story centering on the economics of the Sanguinary Utnapishtim. If Trump's rose garden tariff regime is indeed remembered by historians as the onset of a significant economic downturn, I hope that some footnote is reserved by some literary theorist somewhere for noting that my fanfic was among the literary responses thereto. All that to say: a somewhat longer and more involved post today as I reflect on the background assumptions about the world that will make that possible. So much so that I moved it to its own page. Enjoy!

The Angriest Lads

date: 30/03/2025

Recent discussion with a good friend has me reflecting: why Khorne? Even granted I want to play the baddies, why Satan-in-his-aspect-as-rageful-murderer rather than Satan-in-his-aspect-as-despair or Satan-in-his-aspect-as-betrayer or Satan-in-his-aspect-as-debauchery? So in this little post I am gonna say a bit more on that.

Livid Angron Jay Zillax. Posted with artist's permission.

So it is maybe worth starting with why I wanted to play the bad guys: after all, the grimdark universe is replete with opportunities to cosplay as evil, why choose the worst of the worst? And the answer is -- I didn't initially! I was initially attracted to an Imperium loyalist guard faction, rather than the traitor guard of the Sanguinary Utnapishtim as I now envision them. I had in mind a more nuanced thing, wherein they were genuinely evil (because being loyal to the Imperium makes that inevitable) but more tragic figures, trying their best to do good but continually choosing to side with the worst government in history out of religious zealotry and misplaced loyalty. But, well, I found my writing chops just weren't up to that. Making them tragic but still interesting required an ability to evoke pathos that it turns out I don't have. What little creative writing talent I have is better suited to comedic writing, and it's really actually rather difficult to convey that sort of thing in a comedic tone. Not that it is impossible! I think some of the best bureaucratic comedies I discussed below, for instance Catch-22 or the filmic interpretation of Starship Troopers, are quite capable of achieving that duel-affect. But, well, turns out that ain't me. So I abandoned all pretence at subtlety and went all in on Chaos as requiring the least subtlety from me. Why, then, Khornite chaos in particular?

I think it's two-fold. First, there is sheer process of elimination. There's chaos-undivided, Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, and Tzeetch. As for chaos undivided, I guess the idea of that was just crowded out by the World Eaters and Iron Warriors for me. I genuinely enjoy the two flavours of Chaos Undivided being - this is a sincere religion which I actually care about, or I am definitely so smart and just using chaos it's not using me no-siree, and I think there are already two canon factions that explore those ideas well. I just didn't really feel the need to add anything. The reason I have always gravitated to guard (traitor or loyalist), and if not them the Tau, is I am attracted to the idea of the normies of the universe facing up to its horrors. I generally like this in fiction, it's why I like the reddit art community Military Vs The Unknown and really enjoy Wells' more grounded battle sequences in War of the Worlds. And, well, Tzeentchy wizard boys are not really that. While they can be mortals technically, once you have access to Supreme Cosmic Power? I dunno, you stop getting my sympathy as a normie facing up to the horrors. You are, in fact, the horrors. As to Nurgle, well I don't need to cosplay being a depressive unhealthy git. I'm here for escapism not just to recreate my daily conditions of life! Plus I am easily grossed out. No thanks. Slaanesh is probably the close second to me. Now, I find decadence a bit meh as a theme. I remember when I first read Brave New World I genuinely did not pick up it was meant to be a dystopia --- ohhh noooo too much drugs and orgies but where's the deeper meaning ohhh nooo; shut up, nerd. But the other side to Slaanesh is elitism, toxic perfectionism in its personal and social expressions, and that I do find very interesting as a villain theme. So, it was a live question for me to make these chaps Slaanesh themed; why didn't I go that way?

(Well, watch this space. I do in fact think I am going to have something Slaaneshi to do with my fictional universe. There's already been a little tiny sprinkling of Slaaneshi cameos in both my own and some guest stories. And there will be more! But, ok, that aside.)

Now, this gets to the second reason for going Khorne - its match to my personal psychology. I find it easy to imagine someone who has responded to anger with introducing meditative exercises to try and let them channel that anger more efficiently. All I had to do was change what counts as an effective channel of that anger - rather than learning to forgive and direct their energy towards improving conditions in the world, they are trying to learn to hate more efficiently and ensure their violence is systematic rather than sparodic. This is an inverse of something I feel I have to do in myself, it takes something wicked about me and turns it up to 11. Whereas, well, my egalitarian beliefs are more heartfelt than my pacifist inclinations; I don't really have to channel feelings of snobbery and disdain into something healthy, I simply don't tend to feel that much snobbish disdain. But I do have to channel feelings of spite and self-righteous anger into something positive, because those sins are mine. The chipper Khornite logisticians of the Sanguinary Utnapishtim are attractive to me as a dark mirror, they are what the worst version of me would look like. A basically pleasant bureaucrat utterly dedicated to hurting everyone and everything around them, and feeling totally self-justified and even pleased with themselves as they do so. While I can enjoy Slaaneshi themes, none of them cut to the bone like that, none of them show me up for who I fear I might be.

So, yes, there's why I picked Khorne, there's why I went with the angriest lads. I found it easier to do exagerrated broad comedy if I was writing for chaos as opposed to any more nuanced faction. Of the chaotic sub-factions half the others didn't appeal to me for one reason or another. And of the two that did, Slaanesh and Khorne, it was the latter which most tapped into the worst aspects of my actual personality. Write what you know, they say, and the Sherden Pact are what I know intimately but very much wish I didn't.

Going Public

date: 03/02/2025

I finally actually shared this website with large numbers of people; mainly strangers on Reddit and other forms of social media. I have to admit I was really nervous. I write for my own pleasure, but... I dunno, it's been years I have been writing on here, and it just would have stung a bit if the minute other people looked at it they told me it was rubbish. Fortunately, people have been very kind and supportive. It feels good, and I have been really happy to find the online community jovial and welcoming. Nice!

Power Scaling

Image is Devotee of Khorne
by Ivan Espinoza.
Used with artist's permission.

date: 15/02/2025

Because my partner and I are both huge nerds we both spend a lot of time in fandom. While neither of us are entirely gender-conforming in this regard, it's fair to say that she tends more to girl-fandoms and I to boy-fandoms. But she draws 40k fan-art and is a huge Infinite and the Divine fan and I have an Ao3 account, so we both have a bit of knowledge of what The Other Half are up to, allowing us to compare notes. And, cliché as it is to observe, we both agree: the old adage is quite simply correct that boy-fandoms, and only boy-fandoms, are obsessed with power-scaling. What is power-scaling, why the gender-gap, and how do I relate to it here?

Power-scaling is when you try and work out the answer to "who would win in a fight?" or "who is more powerful?" comparison questions in a fictional setting. Of course the nature of fictional settings is that there aren't really hard-and-fast rules, meaning there's lots of debate about this sort of thing. Since these will often involve fights that did not actually occur in the official sources about the setting, or if they did were interrupted or in some sense obviously uneven or unrepresentative in some way, there's lots of room for debate. Fandoms thus often try to create rules or principles which can be used to settle these - here's a nice guide to the sort of thing people do here, though it is not always plausible in my opinion.

Now while of course it's not like there's a 100% gender alignment in who does and does not engage in power-scaling discussions, on the whole it goes as you'd expect. Fandoms which are male dominated have far more of these conversations than fandoms that are female dominated. And on some level it is sort of obvious why boy-fandoms end up with more of this: there's a gender difference in who likes fight-y things, and power-scaling is naturally more interesting in a setting generally orientated around combat or battles or martial competition. That's true! But there's still a bit more to the gap than this, because even in fandoms which do have a lot of women and which are very combat heavy (think of a lot of young adult fantasy, or the Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones series, or even the recent She-Ra series which was a kind of pastel coloured war epic) anecdotally it seems these fandoms still do less power-scaling. So even when you have women invested in a combat-heavy fiction and its setting, in their fandom activity you don't see as much of this. Why is that?

My current guess is based on this Tumblr post. There's a kind of person (and I think it skews male) who "approaches stories as a collection of facts. To them, the way that they would relate to a story is the same way that they would relate to a dictionary.... to them, a story lives or dies on whether the facts are interesting facts. And when a story is focusing on anything else, it's wasted time." And it turns out that among the interesting facts are not just those presented by the story, but also hypotheticals or counter-factuals the story world suggests should have a determinate answer but does not actually address. This touches upon, I believe, quite deep matters in philosophy of fiction, because it involves seeing the world of the fiction as somehow more than what's on the page, as a realised location which settles matters even if they are not directly addressed and thereby establishes truths which can be discovered and known by a discerning fandom. Why, if I am right, this habit of reading and way of understanding fictional worlds skews male - I do not know. But I think it makes sense of why power-scaling seems more interesting to boy-fandoms: they're more invested in working out and coming to know the comparative power level facts, simply because they are generally more invested in coming to know all the facts.

Why do I raise this on my Warhammer 40k fansite? Well partly because 40k just is a very male-dominated fandom. Exactly how male dominated is a bit hard to get a read on: from this thing which purports to analyse website traffic I find about a 27% female - 73% male gender split for WarCom at time of me writing this post. But presumably that's not all hobbyists and will include (e.g.) parents buying stuff for their children. Whereas when I look through Reddit and forum posts of people reporting their experience in the fandom the popular guesses seem to be somewhere between 5-15% women, with most saying that in recent years there's been an increase in the proportion of women. (For what it's worth my own guess is that estimates based on fan-experience slightly under-count because women are more likely to be involved in the painting and reading section of the hobby, which by its nature is less visible than playing in public settings like tournaments or game-stores. But I would also guess that the WarCom site is getting a lot of disproportionately-women-who-do-the-birthday-present-buying visitors, so that will overcount. So put me down in the 10-20% guesstimate range I suppose.) In any case, what this all amounts to is that as a literal wargame setting with a very male fanbase you basically can't avoid power-scaling discussions in 40k, and despite not finding them intrinsically all that interesting I see a lot of them.

Not, mind you, that I am totally unintested in power-scaling. As I mention on my Themes page, I'm very interested in world-building as part of my hobbying. This requires there should, after all, be some constraints the fiction sets for that to work. I am not so far gone as to think there's a real fact about whether Superman would beat the entire Green Lantern Corps in a fight, I do think that if Superman loses a punch-up to some random mugger in Metropolis with no explanation as to why - that's immersion breaking to the point I don't know what the setting is trying to do anymore and wouldn't find it satisfying to try and build within that world. But also: while I do this far far less than what I think is normal for 40k fanfic, at least sometimes I am writing stories with fight-scenes, so I do need to have some sense of how they'd go. I'll say what I do below, then end by trying to draw out my personal lesson for how to do power-scaling.

So far I have basically tried to borrow from sources which I think are cool. Usually "official" sources, but not always; the Retributors from the excellent Astartes short are, after all, a fan homebrew project chapter that was only recently ascended just because the material was so popular. From this limited subclass of sources I gather together claims or ideas that I think can be useful heuristics for making my own scenes. So, say, from Fall of Cadia I gather that (Khornite chaos) Space Marines expect to be able to take only 1 casualty for every 50-100 Guardsmen killed, while it is pretty disastrous for them if they are losing 1 for only 30 killed. That said, if a relatively small number of guardsmen are properly equipped they can put up more of a fight; so we do see in some sources that anti-tank weapons, or, like, actual tanks, genuinely slow Space Marines down, even if the astartes can stil emerge victorious from such fights.

Whereas we get this from the excellent Spear of the Emperor: "To fight fair would see < the chaos aligned mortal human > forces crushed, but these men’s masters had fought Space Marines before. They commanded their minions to abandon the firefights and bring the Spears down through misplaced valour and sheer weight of flesh. Just as the bane of ironclad knights on Old Earth had been swarms of peasantry armed with pole-hooks dragging the men from their saddles, Space Marines too could be overwhelmed through sheer numbers. It was madness to look upon, and yet it was the only gamble that had a hope of working." By way of contrast this book also gives you a truly harrowing - one of the best combat scenes I have seen written in a 40k story - depiction of a small number of highly elite and augmented normal humans fighting a single astartes, and just how incredibly difficult this is even for them when it is very specifically what they have trained in and specialised for. (One of the (otherwise really well-written and fun) Guant's Ghost's books also does this, but I didn't find it as satisfying precisely because one felt the plot-armour of the main characters protecting them a bit too powerfully.) So Spear of the Emperor especially has inspired my take on mortals would fight Astartes, since it's so relevant to my setting. If "swarming in a mad rush" is actually the best plan available then people coked up on Khorne juice are ironically very well placed to deploy effective strategy here.

Death of a Space Marine by Lewis Jones.
This is actually official art nicely illustrating the idea! Source.

Talking of which, a number of sources make it pretty clear that one thing that really does change the odds is access to warp shenanigans. A mortal human who also happens to be a powerful psycher can more than keep up with the Alpha Legion boys in this fun story. When we see Space Marines struggle and die it's often because they are taking on beings with daemonic or chaotic-divine "blessings". Finally, one thing I took away from this interesting story (which I shall write my own review of later) is that when experienced primaris-marines fight experienced Khornite berserkers one-on-one it seems that the Khornite has a slight edge; further suggesting that, in an otherwise fairly even straight-fight, being boosted by the warp really is a significant advantage.

So there you go, that is what I use for power-scaling myself. Picking sources literally based on "what I find cool" I have a rough sense of how many Astartes a competent commander expects to lose for fights with Guardsmen, a crude strategy by which Guardsmen can try and make the most of their numerical advantage to come out on top, and some sense that warp-shenanigans can powerfully mess with the general rules of thumb here. To my mind this is the level of detail at which power-scaling is useful. There's no point in trying to exhaustively collect all the facts: because there aren't any, and in any case that might interfere with the all important rule of fun that should be the ultimate decider here. Rather than seek some consistent answer that makes sense of the entire canon (which I do not think exists) just pick themes that make sense to you as an author and allow for cool and fun scenes, and then try and work out what would interfere with these rules of thumb so that when you want to break your own rules you can do so in a principled way.

Varieties of Bureaucracy Comedy

Image is an oft. memed upon screenshot
from Office Space.

date: 03/02/2025

I had a conversation with Yuzi about the similarities and differences between my series of shorts and Praise the Machine Spirit, a lovely comedic 40k bureaucracy short story. (A different but equally delightful take on 40k-Bureaucracy-Humour can be found here. And here's another interviewing a Khornite day labourer!) It got me thinking: why are bureaucracies funny, and what are the sorts of comedic stories we tell with them? Here's my little attempt at a general account and then a taxonomy of ways people have played around with the general idea.

Bureaucracies are good sources of comedy because they are fertile sources of absurdity. The basic comedic impulse is to compare our expectations and hopes for the world with the actual outcomes we are able to achieve, and revel in how the latter deflates the former. Bureaucracies are a great place for doing that to the social world, as they are an attempt to organise the chaos of human coliving. Their inner logics can come very far apart from whatever purpose they might sensibly try to serve, and yet no one person is necessarily doing anything irrational in how they behave within them. So, that is my general theory, the core comedic feature of bureaucracy is absurdity.

This then gives me a four-fold taxonomy of ways I have seen people play around with that basic joke. The first we can call Kafkan Comedy, where the basic joke is that the sheer incomprehensibility of the system basically functions like a Lovecraftian horror warping reality for all who step inside. Probably the most famous example of this is Heller's Catch-22 -- which was one of my first non-Pratchett book loves, perhaps not coincidentally to me now writing these! Heller leans into an often under-explored feature of the military, which is that it is in essence a big bureaucracy dedicated to killing people, and makes hay out of the sheer madness of rationalising something so fundamentally irrational as murderous war. The absurdity in Kafkan Comedy is exaggerated and in your face, here the bureaucracy seems like an expression of an entire world that has itself become fundamentally absurd. Our association between bureaucacy and a rational(isable) world subverted.

The second type I think of as the Epistemic Comedy, and I would place Praise the Machine Spirit in this genre (its most famous instance is probably the comic strip Dilbert). Here the comedy comes from the gap between the knowledge that you the reader have about what this bureaucracy's social function is meant to be, and what the clear consequences of how it is organised will be for its actual output. Typically this will work by having some characters act as avatars for the readers' knowledge, typically low level workers who can see how to get the task done and would happily do it if left alone. But there will be rules, often embodied and enforced by a worthless middle manager, which systematically stymie the characters in simply doing the work. The gap between the theoretical ease of solving the problem and the actual difficulty of making anything happen lets comedy bloom, the association between bureaucracy and instrumental rationality subverted.

The third type I call the Depth Comedy, where the basic joke is the gap between the image of rationalised competence bureaucracies try to project versus what it is like to actually work in them. The most famous examples of this in the UK are Yes Minister and its spiritual sequel In The Thick of It (American readers might be more familiar with the excellent film In The Loop, which was basically an adaptation of the Thick of It). I would also add that in its comedic aspects this is what Man Men was doing. To set up the joke here you need a bureaucracy which has some sort of clear outward facing surface level, then a behind-the-scenes inner working. The audience should be familiar with the latter, and the humour takes place by showing you the former. Invariably we find is the rules and regularity of the surface are backed up by nothing at all if you scratch just an inch beneath. A friend of mine once described the premise of Man Men as "The people who give the things in our life meaning are making it all up" and that seems right, and for Depth Comedies to work you have to get a general sense that this process of making it up is itself absurd, or pathetic. Our association between bureaucracy and regular rule governed order subverted.

The fourth and final type is the one my own shorts most often draw upon, the Tonal Comedy. For a piece of tonal comedy to work there has to be discordance between the vibe or tone of activities within the office versus the actual thing the office does when it operates in the world. (Catch-22 is clearly also doing this.) The source of humour in Tonal Bureaucracy comedies is that the inner workings of a bureaucracy may be totally tonally opposite from the social function of the bureaucracy. Think of "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is the war room!" from Dr. Strangelove, or the incredibly sinister yet entirely benign "Division 14" from Lower Decks. So in my stories the joke is that you have people trying to do utilitarianism but for murder, and their way of achieving that is a bunch of chipper young grads running a sleek modern office complete with power-point-presentations galore, and all the while praying to Khorne that the blood may flow and skulls be piled atop the throne. Absurdity is found in the contrast between what we do and how we organise ourselves to do it. Our association between the nominal purpose of the bureaucracy and its actual operation is what is undermined.

These are, of course, not pure types to be kept forever separate. I already mentioned that Catch-22 crosses the streams. For some other examples, the British version of The Office admixes the second and fourth type -- the most common joke is a riff of the fact that Tim is a basically normal guy stymied by his boss' midlife crisis on the one hand and his absurd colleagues on the other. But also there is a running theme that even in the best of cases he and Dawn are still fundamentally wasting their lives by being here, since what the company does is itself not worth doing when compared with their aspirations to pursuing art or psychology. That is to say, the Tonal Comedy means that their inauthenticity is a source of melancholy humour. Whereas, after the first series, the American version leans more into admixing the first and second types. Jim and Pam have a similar decent-people / awful boss situation going on, but there as the series goes on it becomes a much more significant source of humour that the office place is an absurd world unto itself within which one finds joy by treating it with irony. Something to be said about the UK-US political and cultural differences behind this shift!

But even if these are not separate, I still think it helps me understand the lay of the land by thinking of these as different poles or axis around which bureaucratic comedies can be arranged. Someone should find a way to make this into a neat little 4 by 4 table!

By coincidence I saw this meme on Reddit just after posting.
I'd say this is a mixture of Kafkan and Tonal comedy.
It's also basically the same joke as mine here!

Patron of the Nerd Arts

Image is an excerpt from
artwork I commissioned by Seru.

date: 03/02/2025

I am starting to be able to populate this website with art I commissioned and I am basically just so happy with this. Thanks to all the amazing artists out there for being willing to do this for me, I am having so much fun!

Modelling

Image is, ahem, from the internet.

date: 02/02/2025

For some reason I have found myself lately far far more invested in fic writing and world building than actually building up my little guys. It's made me realise that this generally seems to be cyclical. Sometimes my modelling and painting outpaces my writing and imagining, and then I want to catch up. I am sure that eventually I will want to start building models to correspond to the things I make up in my silly little stories. I wonder if this is a normal hobbying cycle for other people who do homebrew stuff in 40K?

Inductive Inference for the Blood God

Image by Serdjek Sholohovshek.

date: 25/01/2025

I just watched this nicely done YouTube video on Khorne and his ideology. I liked it! Since my little guys are all Khornites I just thought I would link here and say why I thought it was good.

There's a persistent tendency among 40K fans to want their faction to be, actually, really, secretly, the good guys. Sure sure it's a GrimDark setting, but.... my little guys actually have very good reason for slaughtering an entire planet's worth of people! And to some extent, sure; they're your little guys, theme them as you will. More generally - this is a hobby comprised mostly of grown men playing with toy soldiers, some degree of being silly and following your imagination to your heart's content is the name of the game. But personally, for my tastes, this can all go too far and often interfere with what I like best about the setting. To me it really adds to the feel of the thing that there are no actually good factions here (there's maybe a case you can make for the Farsight Enclaves, fine. Even then it is dubious, and depends a lot on the writer!) and I wouldn't want it any other way. Just a matter of taste, of course, but this is my hobby site so my taste reigns supreme!

Whatever the merits of the argument about the setting in general, one might think that when it comes to worshipers of Satan-in-his-aspect-of-mass-murderer specifically such nuances would not arise. Surely this is about as clear cut a case as you could want, right? Well, surprisingly not! Because there is a persistent fan read of Khorne out there that actually Khorne is a bit more reasonable than one might think. He's rewarding honourable warriors in a wargame! Unlike the other Chaos gods he's not out here trying to trick you, it's pretty much what you see is what you get: do war stuff, he will make you more powerful and able to do more war stuff. You want power, he wants war stuff, win win! And so an honourable warrior champion has a pretty strong case for going Khornite, right? Maybe he's not such a bad guy!

So, yeah, I hate that. Mostly for the reasons outlined in the video, which you should listen to in full! But I will briefly summarise as: Khorne shows every sign of just wanting you to kill more people. All that honour stuff seems to be something that people who worship him tell themselves, and sometimes build up elaborate cults and ideologies around it. But Khorne himself would be just as happy if they were simple mass murderers as he is for honour duels and rules of engagement. In fact in so far as rules of engagement prevent you killing more people then he doesn't like them! About the nearest you ever get is: Khorne seems to have a preference for, like, bigger more epic combat. So if you could have had a more equal fight with a rival army but you instead chose to be sneaky and go murder an orphanage, Khorne is gonna be a bit displeased; you dodged the fight you should have had, and Khorne hates people dodging fights. But, I dunno, "small children are relatively low on his target priority list" is hardly a ringing moral endorsement!

What I will say, though, is that it does connect up with something I do like about the setting, and which I hope my murder-utilitarians of the Sanguinary Utnapishtim embody. Namely, the Chaos gods are such that you can predictably learn how to gain their blessings, favour, and disfavour. The setting only works cos lots of people do! And of all the Chaos gods Khorne is in this respect the most straightforward; he has fairly simple goals and fairly simple means of rewarding/punishing people who fall under his attention. But. None of the gods are fully transparent in why they are doing this, so it's very possible to induct the wrong rule from your own track record.

A warrior says "I dedicate this most honourable combat to Khorne" and then slays the rival clan's champion in a fair one-on-one fight. As a result he gets some sort of appreciable boost in his strength or durability. He concludes that Khorne likes his upright behaviour and martial code. So he makes sure to keep his strict code of honour and study his martial forms, which incidentally just generally makes him a better fighter and war leader more generally, leading to a cycle of getting ever more rewards from Khorne. What is more, since his martial code emphasises bravery and willingness to stand up and fight, one time he has a student run away from a fight, and Khorne visibly strikes them down for this violation of the honour code! From his point of view, it seems like he has a good theory of Khorne, because he is able to predictably attain Khorne's blessings and track Khorne's displeasure. But, of course, Khorne just likes that he is a warrior who does a lot of fighting and killing and teaches others to do the same. And he was angry at that student just for avoiding a fight, due in this case to cowardice but Khorne would have disliked it if he had avoided the fight because he felt the victims didn't deserve it. If the initial warrior had been a really successful serial killer specialising in decapitating the elderly he may well have been able to get not so dissimilar results.

This is just an instance of what philosophers call the problem of induction; for any finite set of observations there are always many mutually inconsistent theories that could explain them. I think this allows for fun theming of one's Chaos cults without having to actually make Khorne a reasonable and just god. Your little guys think so and maybe even condition their behaviour on that; but it's just an inductive failure.

Anyway my guys basically think he is an effective altruist but for stabbing, so, like, no excuse for them.

For The Greater Good

Image is a screenshot from Hot Fuzz.

date: 09/01/2025

I just read quite a fun book on the Tau Empire. Certainly among the better of the 40k books, a sort of political thriller set on a world the Tau are trying to incorporate into their empire. It had lots of interesting little worldbuilding points, which I summarised in a Reddit post. Cross linking here since it is very much on theme!

Secret Level

Image is a screenshot from the
YouTube video linked below

date: 17/12/2024

Since I posted a while back about the depiction of combat in the 40kverse I thought I should give a shout out to the recent Amazon Prime TV show, Secret Level. It had an episode based upon Space Marine 2. Not exactly high art, or especially complex. But, credit where it's due, the depiction of Astartes in combat was stylistically well done. (As everyone has noted, you can really feel the influence of Syama Pedersen's style in particular, so special shout out to him.) You can watch a short clip here. What I think it does well is depict the sort of uncanny nature of Astartes - they move far too quickly and far too precisely for anything so big and bulky. It's unnerving, in just the way that I think it ought to be.

Best Non-GW Depictions of Chaos

Image is a screenshot from the
(excellent) film Mad Max: Fury Road.

date: 03/12/2024

A core feature of the 40k universe (and in fact GW's other settings too) is that each of the four humours has their own evil deity that just wants to make everything terrible. There is Khorne, the god of being super angry all the time and murdering everyone about it. There is Tzeentch, the god of being super sneaky and treacherous and scheming for the sakes of changing things for the sakes of more scheming (and magic). There is Nurgle, the god of being chill to a fault, like to a never washing and accepting whatever diseases you get (loving them, in fact) and general entropic decay. And there is Slaanesh, god of excess in all its forms -- typically depicted as sex and drugs and rock'n'roll, but really can be anything taken to an extreme form, perfectionism of a certain fucked up form. Many antagonists are people who worship these gods; variously portrayed as deluded fools, flat out crazy people, desperate people who had nothing left to lose, people trying to bargain for power, or idealists who under-estimated the cost of their ambitions. Lots of ways of accidentally worshiping Satan in the 40k verse, grim dark indeed.

But since nobody has ever accused GW of excess originality, one often finds similar themes and imagery explored in other works. This got me thinking: what fictional media best portrays what-I-think-it-would-be-like to be in a cult dedicated to one of these gods? Other than in sources from GW explicitly trying to depict that... though honestly with one exception I think all of the below probably do better than any GW source even besides that. Here are my takes!

Ok most immediately what sparked this is I just watched Arcane (series 2) -- for which spoilers incoming; in fact, any media mentioned in this post will be spoiled -- and I thought it had a great depiction of Tzeentch corruption. In that show ambitious idealists think they can safely harness the power of magic to change their world for the better. Gradually they find they are embroiled in various schemes which they justify to themselves as necessary for the greater good of the change their magitek could bring, until eventually one of them goes full on creature-of-the-arcane and decides the setbacks are caused by human nature per se, which must therefore be magically perfected. The aesthetic is vibrant yet disturbingly uncanny, the motivating source is ambition and a desire for extreme change, the two magic users start off as allies but inevitably end up turning on one another, and we even get a multi-eyed bird in the final sequence for good measure. 9-fold blessings upon House Talis!

The image macro is my choice for Khorne. Immortan Joe is a roided out (... kinda, he's sorta faking it...) warlord who has started a warrior-personality-cult founded on control of the resources necessary to carry out warfare. He seems to have done this by just mishmashing together various aspects of past warrior cults and societies, and his men go into a battle fury when they think a glorious death is possible. They seem like a fairly uncomplicated bunch, fitting for an uncomplicated god. Witness these skulls!

Ok kinda cheating for Slaanesh because it's more the other way round, but... it's gotta be the Cenobites, right? Humans turned into demonic beings because they pursued sensual excess to such a point that the distinction between pain and pleasure stopped meaning anything, just the fact that it was an extreme feeling is enough? Kinda weirdly sexual but not in a sexy way, more in a horrifying way? Clearly the Hellraiser series was authored by some sort of time-travelling IP thief who saw the Slaanesh aesthetic and went and wrote it up in a just enough to be legally distinct fashion. Only explanation. They have such sesnations to show you!

So it's time for the one exception. The official Black Library book Lords of Silence actually gives a pretty interesting depiction of a Nurgle aligned group. From the outside they are horrifying, and we see the process of some poor chap becoming one of them. But we also see that from their perspective they are just preaching a kind of stoic acceptance of the universe, and it's not really out of malice - if anything they think you stand to gain from embracing their doctrine, body-horror and all. It's fun! So on this one I actually think GW are the best source. But if I had to pick from non-GW... er, it's actually pretty rare? Without it really being any particular faction therein you could kinda see the setting of the game Pathologic as a nice depiction of a place falling to Nurgle, so let's say that. Plague awaken here!

The Illusion of Time

date: 01/12/2024

It seems like it's been a long time between updates, but actually as I get closer to sharing this place with other people I have just deleted a whole bunch of posts I wasn't happy with! This is such a very nerdy project, even for me, that I got a bit self-concious. Eek!

Bolter Porn

Image is official art from here.
Not sure the artist!

date: 15/04/2024

A common form for lore - fictions or fanworks or etc - to take, in the 40k fandom, is what people refer to as "bolter porn". This is fairly lavacious descriptions of sci fi action scenes. Lavish descriptions of bodies torn apart as the muzzle flash of bolt guns firing into them shed a near erotical light on the whole scene. To a certain extent, I get it: this is a war game, presumably people interested in it are interested in depictions of combat. It seems about as safe a presumption of common interest as the writers can make. The problem is that it is almost always incredibly boring.

This is certainly not because I am uninterested in science fiction action! I often tell people I think the trench run sequence of A New Hope is just about perfect cinema. Starship Troopers, Aliens, Terminators 1 & 2, and Predator, all rank among my favourite films. And it is not even just when visually displayed. The battle of Yonkers in the book version of World War Z is, I think, masterfully done stuff. As is the Thunderchild's engagement in War of the Worlds. And later in this post I will be able to name some examples of 40k bolter porn done well. But despite my appreciation of the genre there is no denying that the vast majority of what I read in 40k fiction is just incredibly dull. I genuinely find myself just skipping sections rather than have to put up with 10 more paragraphs of "And then Honour Capitain Bigus Dickus bravely shot a gun that went pew pew in a manly way, the lithe eldar bodies exploding around him in a shower of not-semen." I get it. So short reflections here on what makes this work well and why it usually falls flat.

Obviously part of the issue is just that most writing is bad. That's just the way of things. Most of everything is bad. Everything I do is bad, so I can hardly cast any stones here. So it goes. I do think there are issues even on top of that.

Related to the above there are also certain obvious rules of good writing that are all too frequently violated. Why, after all, do Predator or Aliens or cetera work so well? In very large part because you are attached to the characters and their situation. I often say that the lightsaber duel between Vader and Luke in Return of the Jedi is my favourite lightsaber fight in the entire Star Wars franchise. (Yes yes the hallway scene in Rogue One and parts of the duel of the fates in Phantom Menace -- come on, it drags a bit -- are also good.) Clearly it is not the most acrobatic or visually exciting, far from it. But the moment it represents -- seeing how for all Luke's training and development to this point Vader is still able to near effortlessly tear him down -- is powerful, the characters and their struggle and the narrative revelation it represents have all come together to make this more than just swords clashing. Think of Inyigo Montoya's last duel in Princess Bride! Or - and I can't believe I am saying this - Puss in Boots' final duel with the Wolf in his recent film. (Those examples might give the impression this takes a lot of work to build up but I do not think so: via some quite simple expedients both duels in The Buried Giant feel impactful, despite the characters only recently having been introduced in the first case.) All too often the 40k books fail to do this basic thing, actually make me care about the situation before throwing me into it.

I can actually think of an example of combat in 40k verse done well with this in mind. Towards the end of Valdor (mentioned below! Some spoilers following) we see one of the disaffected former soldiers of the unification wars step up to battle a newly unleashed Astartes. For obvious reasons things do not go well for him. But the brief exchange feels meaningful because you have come to understand him and his perspective up to this moment, and it even feels somewhat glorious that he should manage what he does in his futile raging against the light's fading. Likewise the last thunder-warrior's duel with Valdor himself. That book in general was much better written than is typical in these cases so perhaps it is not to be found surprising.

But while that can be interesting I feel as if the main use of combat in written media has to be setting establishing. The Battle of Yonkers contains relatively little description of, like, actual combat. But it doesn't need to in order to be thrilling. Because by telling us how the government was trying and failing to contain the crisis we are learning very important things about the setting. You see the tragedy not just as a local disaster but as the true herald of catastrophe that it is meant to be. We learn about mindsets and come to see consequences as inevitable and those are what really sustain our interest, the combat is just one means among many to do this. (It has points in common with well written sex scenes here. Of course the erotic thrill may be reward enough, but even where that is not really the focus if done well they can still be worth the read for what they tell us.) If your setting is worth learning about at all then this can be an exciting way to do that.

All too rarely this is a virtue which good 40k books manage to attain. Once again the Valdor book manages this with the doomed former soldier's recollections of first seeing a Custodian do battle. I reproduce a quote here:

Achilla even saw one of them once, from a distance. He should have been concentrating on his own fighting – advancing up the course of a dried-out irrigation canal to assault a derelict pumping station – but once you caught a glimpse of one of those golden devils, everything else seemed slightly pointless. He’d used his old augmetics to get a better view, and so from a range of almost three kilometres he’d watched the whole thing unfold.

He couldn’t even count the number of enemies that it had killed. He couldn’t even really see how it was doing it, the pace was so fast. The devil wasn’t using a gun, like anyone sensible, but some kind of electricity-wrapped spear. It was carving through solid stone, slashing through the masonry as if it weren’t there. A rusty old tank was kicked over – kicked over – and then pulled into shreds of burning metal.

Achilla found himself appalled. That level of naked power was… unfair. There could be no enjoyment in it. There was no chance that the other one might strike a lucky blow. There was no indication at all that any money was changing hands with those things, which was an aberration – fighting for its own sake, without a decent reward for services rendered, was the most perverse inclination of all.

So he’d turned the augmetic off, and got back to what he was supposed to be doing. And yet, he never forgot. In the cities, they were flying those eagle-head banners and celebrating the return of civilisation, but out there, in the deserts and the ruins, at the sharp end, monsters were being set loose. It didn’t matter that they were clad in gold and crimson, that they looked like something noble and refined, because nothing noble and refined could do those things. It was a sham, and Achilla knew all about those, because he’d been on the other end of them more often than not

Of course tastes vary and maybe the full context is needed to appreciate it, but for me this worked well. And it worked despite the fact that you get very minimal description of any actual fighting. But you don't need to, learning about Achilla's emotional reaction to what he saw, knowing as the scene emphasises that it is not as if this is a sentimental man, tells you more interesting information than any detailed blow-by-blow would. (There is a moment in Unremembered Empire wherein you see Guilleman respond to an ambush that does something similar - we get a description of the combat, but what makes it actually interesting is learning about how he thinks about the situation. There is also a haunting descent into madness rendered quasi-literal a la Heart of Darkness in the sequence wherein the protagonist fights his way back into his old home in Twice Dead King.) Good descriptions of combat can be just as character establishing and world building as descriptions of combat or conversation or architecture.

So anyway those are my somewhat basic thoughts. Of course the basics of good writing need to be in place for fight scenes to work, and all too often isn't. And yes work needs to be done to make us actually care about the people and situation at issue, and all too often isn't. But most of all I think what makes written combat interesting is that it tells us something about the setting or people therein, we actually learn something. The combat is a medium for more than just the thrill of a well described action-packed sequence of events. While I have tried to do this in my own writing for the middle chapters of The Disaster at Mot, I must admit I probably failed. But I have the excuse of being an amateur! All too often bolter porn produced by Black Library books also doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know, it feels all too much like pure filler, like the writer is being paid per word. Ironic that this should be my final complaint, given the length of this very post!

Book Reflections: Warhawk of Chogoris

date: 07/03/2024

So I just finished reading Warhawk and I really liked it. In particular I found the characterisation of Khan fascinating. Two things I particularly liked about it:

1.The contrast between his outward demeanour and what we see of him when he is talking to close confidants or thinking to himself. Outsiders to the legion consistently treat the Chogorians as backwards and savages. Conversations are hampered by a language barrier, and even given that the Khan is often taciturn or brusk. But the book gives us access to his more private moments and he's actually introspective and wise, he thinks seriously about the nature of war and what martial valour must be to be separate from bloodlust, what it is they are fighting for, and even the metaphysics of the world around him. He uses the reputation for savagery strategically (e.g. to extort the Martians into building him better ships) but ultimately you get the impression of a very cultured and even somewhat jovial man.

2. He is very clear eyed about the Imperium and the Emperor. Much of the book is about ideological fights re the Imperial Truth and its role in the Great Crusade. You get the impression that Jaghatai signed up only because he realised resistance was futile and is always ultimately concerned to preserve Chogorian culture, that he foresaw the problem with trying to impose the Imperial Truth given that it was false and demonstrably so, and that he was perfectly willing to take the Chogorians and cut and run from the Imperium if it looked like they were going to try to seriously impose Terran rule upon them. Too often otherwise intelligent characters seem to just buy into the whole definitely-not-a-God-emperor-but-also-you-have-to-kill-anyone-who-defies-me-and-conquer-the-galaxy-in-my-name thing far far far too easily. So I enjoyed this.

But the most interesting aspect of the book to me is you get the sense that Chogoris had a cultural tradition of dealing with the warp but not-going-too-far that had allowed them to avoid the worst problems of Old Night while still allowing them to deploy Stormseers very effectively. But because they have a reputation as unsophisticated (the contrast is made with both the highly refined Blood Angels and also... just... Magnus) nobody takes them seriously when they try to push for their ways to be adopted. So even though I like characteristics 1 and 2 it means there is still something tragic and flawed about him. The tool he uses to keep himself distant from the Imperium and protect Chogoris from Terran domination is ultimately what stops him from being an effective ambassador on the key issue which ended up damning the whole enterprise. Given the role of religious tradition in managing the warp for the Blood Pact, I am trying to incorporate some of these ideas into stories I am writing.

So you end up with a cool character whose virtues are intertwined with vices in such a way that his enterprise is ultimately doomed. You see how you end up with 30k turning into 40k, but without having to give Jaghatai the idiotball or the magic artefact of badthink, instead making his mistakes understandable. Wish we got more like this!

Arcane as Inspiration

date: 29/01/2024

If you didn't watch it when I was out I highly recommend Arcane. It was very good. Here's something that I took away from it that I would like to recreate.

One of the core plot threads of Arcane's first series follows the political shenanigans of various squabbling Higher Ups in the central location of the show, Piltover. But most of the rest of the show focuses on the strivings and aspirations of people from the under-city, an oppressed and poverty striken district neighbouring and governed by Piltover. What this allows for is something that I found very powerful: the under-city characters are obsessed with, absolutely constantly thinking about and planning around, Piltover and how it relates to them. But the Piltover political leaders? They barely care. For them it's just Tuesday. Don't get me wrong, they do sometimes discuss the under-city. But their entire framework for this is seeing them as a security threat to be contained; none of the dramas and dreams we see play out among the central caste register as anything worth caring about.

As a way of depicting oppression I found this wonderful. The people of Piltover aren't even malicious - they just don't care. They got their own thing going on, the under-city just doesn't come up in their daily lives that much, and when it does its just as a source of crime or terrorism. Nothing in their world prompts them to think about it more than this so they just kinda don't. In that way you have this wonderful city of normal, often even kind, people filled with advanced technology and strong capacity to do good existing side by side with squalor and misery; and it scarce occurs to anyone that it might be another way. (Now events of course transpire to shake this situation up but... watch the show!)

This to me is a kind of profound GrimDark, a situation that isn't hopeless but makes you lose hope in humanity precisely because despite that nothing actually gets better. I hope to explore this angle in a future story.

Valdor: Birth of the Imperium

date: 15/01/2024

Just finished the above named book and it's amazing. Genuinely a higher quality of writing than I thought possible from a Warhammer book. It manages something many fail to achieve - without making Valdor and his cause entirely unsympathetic, it doesn't make the imperium "the good guys" either. It's a more tragic tale on GrimDark and I absolutely love it. Showing that it achieves GW's real purpose it even made me sympathetic to collecting Custodes! The characterisation they receive here is fascinating and deep.

Anyway if you're the kind of person who enjoys this stuff and haven't already read it I can't recommend more

Feeling Happy

date: 10/01/2024

After some difficult times over the holiday I am finally back to doing what I care about. Writing weird lore! I will say that the Warhammer 40k community has been very welcoming and fun community to me. I have had lovely chats about lore and the game on Reddit, and there is a WhatsApp group for people who play in my area that is nothing but good natured fun. Needless to say when I meet up with people it has been lovely too. It makes it all the more puzzling that 40k on Twitter is so contentious and sometimes, like, a bit Nazi? Something a bit off in how Twitter cultivates communities methinks.

GrimDark?

Image is a screenshot from
Space Marine 2!

date: 17/12/2023

The 40k franchise is iconically "grimdark" - in the grim darkness of the future there is only war, after all. It's a core part of what attracts many to the franchise, and generally something fans think we should fight hard to preserve. I also like that it is a bleak pessimistic universe, so I am ok with that (I am also a Star Trek fan, so this rather balances things out in my life, keeps me centred.) But I find I consistenly have a slightly different relationship to this set of genre conventions compared to many others in the fanbase.

I think there are two main reasons for this, the first of which is not so deep. This first point is just that: part of this grimdarkness has always been silly, and that tends to lower the stakes. As I mention in the backrground page, the not very self-serious comedic side of 40k is basically all my favourite parts.

The other reason though is somewhat more philosophical. Basically it comes down to what I think makes for a genuinely bleak setting. I think that relentless misery actually undermines this, that grimdark is best achieved through contrast. If things are just totally bad in every way then it lessens my capacity to see or experience something as tragic. After all if we say farewell to hope we also thereby say farewell to fear. If things are genuinely relentlessly awful no matter what then why not just shoot yourself? The characters come to seem like they are just wasting my time by going on living.

My go to example from the lore is always the Gaunt's Ghosts series - one thing I think Abnett is quite right to do is generally depict Tanith (in what little we see of it) as a generally pleasant place. Far from perfect, it was poor and a bit of a backwater with a serious criminal underworld. But also a democracy with a generally good standard of living. And far from making the series less grimdark, that makes it far more tragic! If Tanith was just another Imperium hellhole then there would be nothing to mourn in its passing, no sense of loss whatsoever. True darkness requires light by way of contrast, if only to snuff it out.

To me that is a kind of grimdark that is relatively under-explored in the 40k verse. Very often lore focuses on basically decent people crushed by systems much vaster and less caring than them, whose upper echelons tend to depraved cruelty. That can be fun! But the good thing about a Galaxy-wide setting is that it's big enough to contain all sorts, within the broad constraints of grimdark pessimism at least. And at some point I'd like to use my little corner of this galaxy to explore a tragedy that is more existential, in the sene of centered on the consequences of free human choice; a situation that could have been beautiful, but people have somehow conspired to destroy it.

First Post!

date: 15/12/2023

Hi! Welcome to the 4th wall breaking part of the website. Here I want to say a bit about what I am trying to do with the various elements of the narrative and lore. And also comment on the hobby and my motivations and just generally say anything else which is real world relevant.

I think the obvious question to begin with is: why in God's name are you still playing with toy soldiers? And the answer is: depression.

In slightly more detail, I did initially get into Warhammer 40k as a kid, between 11-13 years old. But lack of disposable income and any nearby Games Workshop more or less made it inevitable I could not sustain this. So I dropped away for 20 odd years. Then I got really sad but also a job! By which I mean: I make no secret of the fact that I have suffered from recurrrent bouts of fairly severe depression. Things that I have found help with that are spending quality time with my partner, and things which force me to concentrate on something totally external to myself. Since my partner also likes to paint, it occurred to me that this old hobby of mine could kill two birds with one stone. So I tried it out with that fancy new disposable income employment had granted me and it worked! Evenings now spent with my lovely partner with us both engrossed in painting, listening to a podcast together, stopping to chat and compare work - I find it blissful, and Warhammer 40k has thus been a really great thing at driving away the black dog.

As I mention on the front page, I do also enjoy creative writing as a hobby in itself. So combining the two made perfect sense and led to this website! I try to play but do not get many opportunities, when I can I will write up battle reports and link them here. More to come!