The Black Library novels of CS Goto have caused some controversy and raised some interesting questions about the nature of so-called ‘tie-in’ fiction.  In particular, some fans of the Warhammer 40,000 game (from Games Workshop/GW) have been vocal about the ways in which they believe that Goto takes liberties with their universe.  We caught up with Cassern at the science fiction convention, Worldcon 2006 (LA Con IV, in Anaheim), on 26th August 2006 to ask him his own position on all this:

Q: How do you view the task of writing novels set in the huge and incredibly popular universe of WH40K?

CS: I should say that I have always looked at 40K writing (and ‘tie-in’ writing more generally) as more akin to historical fiction than science fiction, precisely because there is such a wide range of established lore and context within which a story needs to be presented.  Plots and characters need to fit within the established conventions and background, just as a historical novel has to locate itself within a particular period and place in history – If you give the Royal Airforce a squadron of F15s during the Battle of Britain, you may be doing them a great favour but you’re no longer doing historical fiction (although you may still be doing something rather interesting in the form of counter-factual pasts). 
A major difference, however, is that 40K is not actually historical fiction.  That is, the background of 40K is not anchored in reality, but rather it floats semi-freely in an imaginative space.

Q: Semi-freely?  Did you make that term up?

CS: Possibly, but it’s what I mean.  Let me explain: unlike the history of the ‘real’ (which is a word I really dislike), the background material of WH40K has no empirical consequences in our everyday life.  However, this does not mean that WH40K is an arbitrary space – ie. it doesn’t float entirely freely – and this because it is a space that is shared by a real community of people, and it is a space defined by genuine records and documents that profess a level of legitimacy and ‘reality.’  These are the Codexes, rulebooks, and other novels.  I suppose that we might define this space as an institution … and I certainly feel that it can institutionalize people!
What I am saying is that the number of people around the world who are invested in the 40K-verse give it a measure of reality.  In fact, in a certain way, I would also say this about history itself – it’s only real to the extent that enough people believe the version of history that they’re being told.  And we all know that there are many versions of key historical events.

Q: So, you’re saying that writing the in WH40K universe requires a knowledge of the 40K-verse that is similar to the knowledge of European history shown in, say, the Da Vinci Code?

CS: (laughs) Actually, I think it requires a much closer observation of ‘reality’ than Dan Brown attempts.  I don’t think that 40K fans would suffer those kinds of liberties gladly.
However, one of the things that makes the 40K-verse rather more complicated than ‘reality’ is the way that it gradually (or sometimes abruptly) shifts in policy, agenda and architecture depending on the needs of the guys in Games Development at GW itself.  In other words, the rules and the background change all the time – they change slightly between different editions of the game, between different versions of the Codexes, and between different platforms (WH40K tabletop, Inquisitor, RPG, PC games etc.).  Over long periods (and 40K has been around for a long time now), things can change a lot.  In fact, rather like ‘real history,’ the background to 40K is being continuously rewritten to accommodate the needs of the present, as new elements are introduced and have to be written back into the background, or (as in the notorious case of the wonderful Squats) as elements are deleted from the game and thus erased from history!   Some of the first BL novels (specifically those by the fantastic Ian Watson) are now semi-officially regarded as unofficial products!  In other words, the 40K-verse is organic and fluid and, most importantly, it is speculative rather than properly historical.

Q: It sounds as though this should give you a lot of scope for novels and plotlines.  Semi-freedom of choice?!

CS: Yes, it does sound like that.  It’s important to keep in mind, however, that there are a number of very essential elements about the 40K-verse that must always be consistent – the core of 40K, if you like – things that never change, have never changed, and will never change.  Those things must be respected at all costs.  Of course, not everyone will agree on what those things are …

Q: Of course.  But how much freedom are you really allowed?

CS: Well, naturally all novels are checked by BL-editors and by the guys at GW itself. Deviations from the conventions that are considered too egregious are corrected. Those that are fun, interesting, explicable or at least conceivable are usually left in. The reason, I suppose, is precisely so that the 40K-verse grows, expands and changes all the time. Like us (ie. the fans) GW must be aware that rigid stasis would kill 40K, which is also probably why GW changes the rules from time to time, publishes new rulebooks and Codexes etc. Indeed, like us (ie. the writers) GW itself is sometimes criticised by segments of its customers for changing things that many fans/players/readers cared about.  It is one of the ironies of this kind of cultural-world that the fan-base often invests so strongly in the products that they come to feel as though their vision of them is as (or more) ‘real’ than the vision of the ‘official’ developers themselves.
I should add here that this type of investment from the gamers and readers is fantastic, and it is a real testament to the wealth of the 40K-setting.  However, it can lead to uncomfortable situations for authors when plots, characters or ideas are approved by BL as existing within the 40K-verse, but are then disapproved of by some of the readers as unfaithful to the conventions in which they have personally invested.
I remember a great deal of fuss, for example, when GW first introduced the Tau to the 40K-verse.  Some gamers were adamant that they did not really exist, and I know several who still refuse to acknowledge them as ‘real’!  In general, those are the same people who also insist that the Squats still exist …

Q: Are you allowed to fill in gaps in the background yourself?

CS: I’m not sure if that question is properly phrased … I wouldn’t say that there are ‘gaps.’  Although I am always conscious of the places where I might be able to make a contribution to further develop certain areas.  In some cases, such as with the eldar, there were almost no novels dealing with them as the primary characters.  In fact, my own Eldar Prophecy is the first ‘all eldar’ book that BL has ever done. 
On the one hand, this gives a writer a clean slate to work with, which is exciting.  On the other hand, however, given the passion and activism of the 40K community, wherever gaps like this are perceived they are filled ‘unofficially’ by fan-fic, by unofficial websites and by creative individuals at home.  And some of that stuff is fantastic, with significant followings.  Hence, there are hardly ever any ‘gaps’ that are complete voids, and this makes the task of writing the ‘official’ stories even more dangerous!  You always tread on someone’s toes, whether you’re aware of it or not.

Q: I have heard that a number of ‘tie-in’ writers working on some of the other big franchises (especially Star Wars) have faced considerable abuse and even threats because of the way that certain fans of Lucas’ original films have reacted to their ‘official’ tie-in novels.  Have you heard about this happening to writers for BL?

CS: I think that all writers have to develop thick skins pretty quickly.  You’re never going to please everyone.  Criticism is welcome.  Threats are not.  Besides, I also heard that Lucas himself received thousands of threats from devoted fans who thought that he had betrayed his own creation after he made the second batch of Star Wars movies.

Q: You yourself have been criticised for taking liberties with the background, especially in the first chapter of your first Deathwatch book, Warrior Brood.  How do you interpret these criticisms?

CS: Yes, that chapter has become rather notorious, and some of the responses (both criticizing it and praising it) have become rather impassioned!  First of all, let me say that I understand how frustrating and annoying it is when somebody messes with something you care about.  Hence, some readers were angry with some aspects of that chapter, and others were angry with those critics for spoiling their enjoyment of it.  I can see that many readers of BL novels are really passionate about 40K; I respect that fully – I love it too!  To some extent, these kinds of debates about the content and contours of 40K are (or should be) exciting and fun for all concerned, as long as they remain constructive.

Q: Do they not always remain constructive?

CS: (laughs) Not always.  In some cases, people just seem to make stuff up!  Thankfully, however, most of the BL readers are very constructive.  They’re excited about their hobby and about the novels, and they just love talking about them.  I get lots of email from readers who enjoy my work and who want to know about my next projects etc.  I have also had some very interesting exchanges with a number of them, especially the eldar-fans, who want to debate the various merits and demerits of their view of the background against mine.  It’s fun and it’s stimulating; it helps us all get more out of the 40K setting and to work out which aspects of it are really important to people.  I am always happy to have these kinds of discussions, and I know that I learn a lot from them.

Q: Is it not possible to play with the conventions deliberately?

CS: Of course, that would be a very normal technique for a writer to unsettle his/her reader.  Indeed, this is one of the ways in which ‘tie-in writers’ should be able to speak to the more devoted fans of the universe to which he/she is contributing.  In fact, this was one of the things that I tried to do in that infamous chapter of Warrior Brood. 
So: the Space Marine Chapter that I introduced in that book, the Mantis Warriors, had been excommunicate for a long time.  In order to show the effects that this had had on them, I decided to make them a ‘non-Codex’ Chapter, with views and practices that differed from more conventional Chapters.  This was done specifically for the readers who knew the game in detail and so would understand that the Mantis Warriors were different.  Then, in order to demonstrate the desperation of the Mantis Warriors as they made their last stand on the tyranid infested planet, I had them running out of ammunition in their ‘conventional’ weapons and picking up just any old thing that had been left on the ground around the bunker by the Imperial Guards who had died defending it.  They were just scrambling to do anything they could to survive.  In extremis, all laws break down (just like gravity in a blackhole).
Most of this extra detailing was for the benefit of readers who knew what ‘normal’ Space Marines would be doing and could therefore appreciate the crisis situation even better.  And, in any case, much of this is explained later in the book.  Whilst many readers seemed to enjoy this chapter (I get lots of enthusiastic email about it being the biggest and most vivid battle scene in any BL book … although I’m not sure if that’s true), some readers seemed to think that giving a Marine a non-conventional weapon was a betrayal of the 40K-setting.
I can understand that there is a way of looking at 40K that would make this accusation true.  However, I do not think that this type of perspective is very helpful when it comes to writing novels, since at the extreme it could lead to generating novels out of the game-rules, rather than writing them creatively.  If the essential  ‘core of 40K’ that I mentioned earlier is found at this level of intricate detail, then we’re narrating the game, not writing novels in the overall setting.  ‘Tie-in writers’ should be writers too, right?  Being creative in this sense is one of the keys to finding an audience outside the core Black Library readership, and I am always very happy to hear from readers who have found their way into Black Library novels through my work.  It brings new people into the community, which must be a good thing for everyone, right?

Q: Right, and WH40K is a truly massive setting, with space for all kinds of variations around its central themes.  It should appeal to a wide range of readers.

CS:  True.  The Dawn of War computer game franchise, for instance, represents a slightly different interpretation of WH40K, and, in many cases, my novelisation of that game was the first Black Library book that lots of PC gamers had ever read.  Some have gone on to read other BL titles, which is great.  However, the more hardcore BL reader will notice that the novel Dawn of War has some slightly unorthodox moments in it, as it negotiates a position somewhere between the 40K-vision of DoW and the more orthodox vision of that universe.  The sequels, Ascension and Tempest, are rather more inline with the orthodoxy, but the events of the sequels of the PC game continue in the background.  I rather hope that those books provide an effective bridge between the two franchises, as well as contributing something interesting to 40K-lore in the form of the Blood Ravens, which I think is a fascinating Chapter of Space Marines. 

Many thanks to Cassern for taking the time to answer these questions during the busy convention.  We hope to catch him again at next year’s Worldcon (in Yokohama), so perhaps we’ll be able to update this Positions page again then.  In the mean time, if you have thoughts or comments, please visit Have your say.

(2007 interview)