Do authors make Space Marines too relatable sometimes?

[DogWelder]

This is something I always found to be a bit of a peeve in certain Space Marine books. I realize, that in order for the reader to relate to the main character or characters, he or she should have some level of connection to them.

 

However, I feel that Space Marines are made out to be too human sometimes. They're supposed to be the most elite fighting unit in the galaxy composed of demigods, they should act with a level of grandeur and otherworldliness. Having a Space Marine act all friendly and 'just like a regular person' takes me out of it.

 

This is especially apparent in Loyalist Space Marine characters. They are way too nice and understanding to humans sometimes. They're supposed to be elite supersoldiers who have transcended their humanity. I'm not saying they should all be Marines Malevolent and giggle while shelling refugee camps but they should have a degree of arrogance over mortal men and women. Even if it is rather slight.

 

I fear that, in the effort to make the Astartes 'relatable' to the reader, 40k authors sometimes end up taking away everything that makes a Space Marine seem so godlike and transcendent. If the Space Marine characters act just like regular humans then what is the point of reading about Space Marines?

[Leif Bearclaw]

Not really imo. It's not hard to find examples of Marine characters far more aloof and distant, often it's used a source of conflict between the more sympathetic Marines and their more humane brothers. After all, we don't want all Astartes top be cookie cutter automatons.

 

That said, there might be a slight reporting bias. Because stories involving the more 'human' Marines are easier to construct/have a broader appeal, we notice them more often than they 'should' crop up in the setting as a whole. It's a bit like 'suspicious gene-seed origins' and female/mixed gender Guard regiments. They certainly exist, but are generally portrayed as anomalous and unusual. Then the fans get a bit too enthusiastic about the concept, and it keeps cropping up until it seems like the exception in becoming the rule (for a well known non-40k example, see the popularisation of Chaotic Good Drow in D&D after Drizz't took off in popularity).

[D3L]

I think this is well done by some authors and less by others, it depends on whcih novels you're reading in some they're are portrayed as unrelatebale monsters.

 

Sevarian, of the XVI is a personal favourite.

 

Corvo, of the XIII is another one, who transcends or rather ackonolweged his divorce

 

Throughout the HH series actually you see many examples of the transhumanism prior conditioned killer mentally.

 

They are blunt instruments meant for an in elegant purpose, to butcher xenos and free the stars for humanity's ascendancy.

 

Some legions at that time see the advantage of preparing for future where they might have a role, to mind, the XVIII the XV and the XX know they have potential roles for the future, aswell as the VI, as a salient point the XIII know they must adapt, eventually but havent been assigned a designated role, though heavily hinted at.

 

Dependant upon the author and time frame (of the novel and the setting), yes some are too relatable, they're orphans butchered cut up and conditioned for a universe of unending war for an uncaring overlord on a throne they'll never witness

 

I guess it depends on which novels you absorb as a consumer though

 

Excuse typos. Barposting.

Edited October 24, 2017 by D3L

[Ranulf]

I think a part of the problem is that a number of Authors writing 40K literature have a limited appreciation of the universe, its history and the undertones of the various factions and races. Instead, you have more generalist Sci-Fi writers applying their tried and trusted archetypes to a universe where they don't fit. Of course, without new authors jumping into the pit, it'll all get a bit stale.

 

In my case, i'm grimdark to the core - I picked up 40K in the late RT era, my formative 40K years were 2nd Ed. - to me, Space Marines are pre-pubescent and pubescent boys, taken and experimented on, cut-off from external contact and forcefully indoctrinated into the recruiting Chapter's variation of the Imperial Creed. Librarians weed out those with psychic weakness, Chaplains ferret out heresy in thought or deed.

 

What emerges from the baptism of fire is no longer human, it's an Astartes - a monastic, stoic, emotionally repressed killing machine. 

 

While I can understand certain limited aspects of humanity being displayed between brothers (Jealousy, Competitiveness, Comradely etc) I don't believe an Astartes would direct such emotions to, or display in front of, everyday mankind. 

 

Some Chapters are going to put a different spin on things - Space Wolves fighting for the underdog, Marines Malevolent acting like pricks, but at the end of the day Astartes need to shrug off their own humanity in order to have the mindset and ruthless logic to protect the Imperium.

 

To me, that's what makes them interesting - they fight and sacrifice for a universe, Imperium and humanity that they can never truly be a part of. 

[OnboardG1]

Inevitably you need a human reference point to establish a connection between the reader and the characters. From a canon point of view, Astartes might be transhuman, but they're still human in there. The thing is that they're incomplete humans.

 

I can't remember which author it was (Graham McNeill maybe) who said that the difference between Stormcast Eternals and Astartes were that the Eternals were the animate spirits of dead heroes summoned into armor to fight the forces of evil, while Astartes were pre-pubescent kids given the power of demi-gods and told to kill for the Emperor (grimdark). That conceit allows some clever analysis of human nature by deliberately amplifying the characteristics of the youths that become the Space Marines and contrasting that against that which they're missing. The average marine is not a fully rounded adult. They've not developed the maturity that life brings after thirty years of learning and growing. Some might pick that up after years on the battlefield while others will still remain a kid in a tin-suit. Imagine yourself at 13 and given the Astartes treatment. Yeah, eeew. That gives them a lot of scope for both humanity, inhumanity and character development. 

 

A good example would be Xarl and Talos from the NL trilogy. Talos was always the more thoughtful of the two and developed an attitude beyond the simple desire to kill and dominate the weak. He wants a purpose in his life. Xarl is still mostly the murderous youth from Nostramo who enjoys the power his transformation has given him and focuses on his skill in defeating his enemies. The two respect each other but Xarl struggles to see the point of Talos' dreaming and sees it as naivety that their Legion was meant for any higher purpose.

[Jagus Kumkani]

I agree with D3L, some authors take this issue and deal with it in a suitable manner. But this very issue of their humanity is another aspect of what makes a Space Marine interesting. They constantly questions their humanity. They know that their sole purpose is to kill everything that isn't human, and to protect the very humans that constantly come into question. They may not know what it is to be human anymore but it creates a dynamic between their own humanity (or what remains of it) and their duty and purpose as warriors.

 

The Salamanders are a perfect example of that. They're bashed because they have compassion for the Emperors subjects, the people they're meant to protect. But what we get is too much of that human part in the XVIIIth and it takes away from the fact that they are still killers and planet destroyers. The nature of the Salamanders is exploited to the point where that's all we every see of them.

[D3L]

The loss of humanity is a point I only wish... It may never happen , that would be shown more. ADB did it with Grimaldus, Dan Abnett did it in Salvation's Reach.

 

 

It counter to the shiny hope sales management advice actually, gives the lore more depth.

 

That old novel Kallidus reach? With sgt. namaan, 27th bearer of the name... Was pretty much on point.

[Steel Company]

I agree with D3L, some authors take this issue and deal with it in a suitable manner. But this very issue of their humanity is another aspect of what makes a Space Marine interesting. They constantly questions their humanity. They know that their sole purpose is to kill everything that isn't human, and to protect the very humans that constantly come into question. They may not know what it is to be human anymore but it creates a dynamic between their own humanity (or what remains of it) and their duty and purpose as warriors.

 

The Salamanders are a perfect example of that. They're bashed because they have compassion for the Emperors subjects, the people they're meant to protect. But what we get is too much of that human part in the XVIIIth and it takes away from the fact that they are still killers and planet destroyers. The nature of the Salamanders is exploited to the point where that's all we every see of them.

 

 

I think of the best examples of a Marine putting aside their humanity while also questioning their role is found in two Dark Angel centric novles..

 

Angels of Darkness

The scene I'm thinking of is after the scene of youths, Interrogator Chaplin Boreas snaps the neck of one of the youths and tosses his body on a pile of youths, saying that he [the boy] will never have to live with his shame.

The Purging of Kadillus

Vet. Sargent Naaman tries to relate to the Guardsmen during the course of the story, yet fails spectacularly. In the end the Guardsmen he tries to relate to, gets a chunk of his armour.

[Brother Lunkhead]

It's an interesting question. Could you give some examples of when you felt an author made the SM'S too relatable? I'm sure they're out there, I just don't recall any at the moment. If he does his job right and does his homework, the author should base his character interactions on the characteristics of the individual SM and his chapter's relationship to mortal-kind.

 

For example, the Ultramarines on the whole have very close relations because Astartes and mortal cultures are so well integrated. Ultramarines even recruit  from the Ultramar military academies. Other chapters that respect and value mortals (i.e. Salamanders and Blood Angels) are a bit more aloof but still friendly based (I think) on their level of daily interaction (or lack of) with mortals. Other chapters, like the Iron Hands are rather contemptuous of mortal.

 

Now, if you see for example, a Carcharodon buddy up to a guardsman and ask how his wife and kids are doing, that would definitely be out of character.

 

Some authors definitely do a better job than others in finding the right balance of humanity in these transhuman weapons.

[Sete]

BT and Iron Hands relate pretty well with the regular Joe. :D

[Steel Company]

Now, if you see for example, a Carcharodon buddy up to a guardsman and ask how his wife and kids are doing, that would definitely be out of character.

 

 

 

 

If that were to happen, I'd think the Carcharodon was sizing up his next... to quote the psychos in Borderlands, "meat bicycle".

[rendingon1+]

I think it largely depends on author and chapter/legion. Chris Wright for example has a very good grasp of faction's personality - his White Scars are polite and kind of respectfull to normal humans (not many examples I know) while his Iron Hands in "Wrath of Iron" are unfeeling, "monsters" who treat human life as numbers and resources.

 

Astartes are breed apart from humans and that should show. They are better in every way when it comes to war, they are theoretically immortal. I don't think that "SM are in fact big children" is a good argument. It's life experience and knowledge that makes a human what he/she is - there are some very responsible, wise and "grown up" teenagers, while there are lot of 40+ people that are childlish, selfish and just plain stupid. Considering that Astrates take their aspirants from warrior cultures which many of us would describe as primitive, you can bet that these boys went through some serious life lessons beyond their age.

Also it's not like Astartes halted in their emotional and intellectual progress. They only learn things that are neccessary to fulfill their duty ie. to make war. Their life experience shapes them and since their life is war they get lessons that war brings. They are just like normal humans in a sense of being made by what they lived through. It's fully understandable that SM measures non SM only by their worth as a warrior and even then humans are...just humans. No wonder that civilians, non combatants are almost nothing to an astartes.

After all it depends - some chapters/legions are and always were closer to humanity than the others. Ultramarines for example see themselves as a part of their protectorate (what else it is?) and have a hand in governance. Others (majority of chapters) like BT (Helsreach novel is a good example) are only war makers and in fact don't give a damn about humanity at all.

[Grim Dog Studios]

I think like many have already said that it is easier to relate to a Space Marine character if they are more Human, which also makes a book easier to read. I personally struggle to read a book if I can't relate to a character but other people may be different. Also, I think a story with a Space Marine that has emotions makes for a more interesting read than a book about a Space Marine who is just "Kill Ork, feels nothing. Kills Tyranid, feels nothing.".

However I do understand that there is a sweet spot in writing this and some Authors do unfortunately make the Space Marine characters too human like, there has to be the correct mixture of emotion and 8ft tall killing machine, especially in 40K where Space Marines are indoctrinated and often have their minds wiped of the memories from their previous life.

 

I think it is less so of a problem in the Horus Heresy books as I could be wrong but the Space Marines during the Great Crusade and Heresy are not indoctrinated/conditioned in the same way that they are in 40K and are far more Human-like in their emotions.

[Shockmaster]

They are often portrayed too relatable for my own personal tastes, which is why I don't read 40k novels that have loyalist marines as the main characters, I don't mind chaos marines seeming more human in their own warped logic way but I prefer the loyalist marines to be heroes that scare the people they save almost as much as their enemies do due to their blunt & aloof manner that keeps them apart from the human societies they once called their own.

 

Obviously some exceptions such as Ultramarines or Salamanders with the people of their home worlds.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Shockmaster

[the jeske]

Well I will try to look at it from a psychological perspective. Space marines [at least most of the post HH, no SW ones] are taken as non adults or young adults. Both types do not have a psyche full formed and developed. More most parts of the male brain do not stop developing till mid 20s. So we take such people and add permanent change to brain structure]ranging from indoctrination, to physical changes to the brain or hormons runing through it and permanent use of drugs. Now a space marine should be as understandable in his action to a "normal" human as someone who has sever psychosis. It is even worse the other way around, because "normal" humans have a chance to grow up to be adults. A space marine is a roided up boyscout who got hit on the head with a crowbar too many times. He will in most cases not understand the life of "normal" people. Even dudes like salamanders [who live among their own people etc] would have problem with that. This was also show in old fluff very offten by the way. Marines not understanding why IG or planetary DF not wanting to die on the spot or trying to save themselfs. Or even having full on aggresive reaction to what normal humans do[iH killing a bunch of IG hiding behind cover, when them sacrificing themselfs would give time and waste enemies ammo, making the chance of IH success higher etc]. So that is one thing.

Now does making marines more "normal" make the books better/interesting to read/etc, I don't know.

[Lexington]

I think people often don't realize how new (and unevenly distributed) the idea of Marines as aloof, unrelateable superhumans really is. At best, it's something that was intermittently inserted during 3rd Edition, and for most of the intervening time, it was more a particular method of writing about Astartes than an ironclad rule.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Lexington

[Brother Sefiel]

Greetings

I think people often don't realize how new (and unevenly distributed) the idea of Marines as aloof, unrelateable superhumans really is. At best, it's something that was intermittently inserted during 3rd Edition, and for most of the intervening time, it was more a particular method of writing about Astartes than an ironclad rule.

Good point, well made.

Well I will try to look at it from a psychological perspective. Space marines [at least most of the post HH, no SW ones] are taken as non adults or young adults. Both types do not have a psyche full formed and developed. More most parts of the male brain do not stop developing till mid 20s. So we take such people and add permanent change to brain structure]ranging from indoctrination, to physical changes to the brain or hormons runing through it and permanent use of drugs. Now a space marine should be as understandable in his action to a "normal" human as someone who has sever psychosis. It is even worse the other way around, because "normal" humans have a chance to grow up to be adults. A space marine is a roided up boyscout who got hit on the head with a crowbar too many times. He will in most cases not understand the life of "normal" people. Even dudes like salamanders [who live among their own people etc] would have problem with that. This was also show in old fluff very offten by the way. Marines not understanding why IG or planetary DF not wanting to die on the spot or trying to save themselfs. Or even having full on aggresive reaction to what normal humans do[iH killing a bunch of IG hiding behind cover, when them sacrificing themselfs would give time and waste enemies ammo, making the chance of IH success higher etc]. So that is one thing.

Now does making marines more "normal" make the books better/interesting to read/etc, I don't know.

Yeah, I agree with much of this, too.

The massive change between 1st and 3rd edition marine background really threw me when I started playing again, and I'm no fan of the centuries-old, 8 foot superhuman ideal (although wasting so much effort on marines that are so very expendable is another thing I don't like - I'm sure there's a happy medium somewhere).

That's not saying that marines shouldn't be considered severely mentally-ill by any reasonable metric; whether they were mad or not beforehand, they've been psycho-indoctrinated and had their personalities moulded to endure constant, horrific experiences - not to mention the damage that those experiences would actually do.

It would be interesting to speculate how many chapters would bother training their men to interact with normal humans and examine their motivations. After all, if marines have been adapted to be superhuman, you might consider that some of that superhumanity might be used to look at the species that they have allegedly been created to protect. That they have never experienced what it is to be a normal human could be trivial if they have enough ability to understand psychology themselves. Some, naturally, will be adept at feigning normality, depending on the attitudes of their chapter/homeworld/personal experience, though. How an author chooses to take account of these factors is another matter.

Of course, no matter which version you go for: "Only the insane have the strength to prosper; only those who prosper may judge what is truly sane."

[b1soul]

I got into 40K relatively late (circa 2005),so I do not have any emotional attachment to prior incarnations of grimdark.

 

I do think SM should not be completely human, but they are still human to an extent. It's a fine line the authour has to walk...

 

Also, some SM are recruited later (e.g. their early teens) and some are even recruited as adults (e.g. Thirteenth Great Company)...some retain their memories more clearly. Some chapters may employ less extensive hypno-indoctrination. There is room to play around.

 

If every Astartes is essentially a biological robot, that would be very boring

[Kinstryfe]

The reason you don't see the fiction often write them as unrelatable killing machines is the same reason you don't see a lot of fiction from the point of view of orks or hormagaunts: it reads less like a narrative and more like a sequence of events. Locate prey. Shoot with Bolters twice, resulting in target casually. Sprint 10 meters to the Northeast while reloading. Spot and engage with new target. Three shots fired leading to two casualties. Crushed third target's skull with impact from bolter. Moved 30 meters due North under cover. Etc etc etc.

 

Inhuman Astartes are better served as non-pov characters. They can certainly be presented as odd from a human standpoint, but boiling a story worth of narrative down to inhuman thoughts and feelings is going to make for very dry reading without a ton of exposition as to why they act and behave a certain way in almost every instance.

[Roomsky]

I'm not huge on "big human" space marines, indistinguishable from normal people beyond the feats they are capable of. That said, I'm hardly opposed to marines having a selection of human emotions that make sense for the legion or subject. Basic feelings like pride, anger, jealousy, etc. could all find their way into the psyche of a marine, assuming an appicable target appears for said emotion. I'm reading through Space Marine at the moment, and I enjoy seeing marines as basically a bunch of weirdos, not devoid of emotion, merely applying them to different activities.

[Volt]

I think the problem is less that the authors don't write inhuman marines, but that the authors are too constrained by looking at everything through the looking glass of a western fusion of deontology/consequentialism that most of here probably adhere to morally (at least on the best of days), and things like pure utilitarianism are just unthinkable and can't really get into the mindset of. In my opinion the problem is more writing those Chapters with unorthodox ideologies, or ideologies we would label as evil, and writing them as villains instead of truly exploring why they think that way, and presenting arguments to justify their opinions, and I mean serious ones at. Something like how in Crime and Punishment, Fyodor absolutely does not agree with Raskolnikov's views and almost certainly found them monstrous as he hated the end results of rationalism. Yet he provides exceptionally convincing arguments for Raskolnikov's views and his justifications for holding those views. That's the kind of mindset you need for a Space Marine. You need to think like a monster, and you need to justify why the monster thinks like it does with absolute conviction. Not writing it like a mustache twirling cartoon villain, but a man with logically founded convictions. That's what makes a character good and convincing. Thus books involving the Iron Hands come off more like one-dimensional cartoons rather than fleshed out abhorrent beings with a convincing argument in support of their world view.  

[bluntblade]

Don't you mean Iron Warriors?

[rendingon1+]

What's the definition of cartoon villain anyway?

[MrDarth151]

I think the problem is less that the authors don't write inhuman marines, but that the authors are too constrained by looking at everything through the looking glass of a western fusion of deontology/consequentialism that most of here probably adhere to morally (at least on the best of days), and things like pure utilitarianism are just unthinkable and can't really get into the mindset of.

 

Here's a problem with that: 40k cannot be written as pure utilitarianism, because from the perspective of pure utilitarianism, the most moral choice is letting the humanity die.

 

There is not even a question about it. And really, what is the point? 40k as per canon is basically inherently nihilistic conflict between monsters and slightly better monsters that ultimately will lead to the local equivalent of the devil winning and torturing everyone's soul for eternity.

 

Core themes of the setting prevent meaningful moral quandaries in the first place, so it's better to just ignore it altogether and write characters that are relatable. They sell better.

[A D-B]

Really interesting topic! A lot of food for thought.

 

As with (almost) all things, there's no "canon" answer. We're never sat down and told "Space Marines are actually like this." There's no actual really-real 40K to be beholden to, there's just what you think 40K is from reading the books and knowing the setting - no different from any reader or gamer. It's interpretation, not just author by author, but moment by moment. Like every fan, an author's preferences and perspectives evolve over time. They learn more. They change their minds or find themselves developing what they already believed and doing that more often and/or better. They write different projects differently. They focus on a different aspect of the lore, or a different flavour, or a different era, or a different Chapter, or a different interpretation of a Chapter from a specific era... and so on.

 

Lexington made a great point above, as he often does when the meta-notion of canon and interpretation comes up with the setting. I mean, there are a lot of great posts in this thread, but that one stood out to me from the perspective of someone involved with the lore, since it's not something often mentioned by non-devs/authors, etc.

 

One of the things I get the most positive messages and mail about is how I write loyalist Space Marines - especially loyalist Space Marines interacting with humans and their Traitor cousins. There's no smugness or even confidence inherent in admitting that, because at no point do I think I'm doing it the only way, or even the right way, just the way that makes the most sense to me. There are other interpretations that I consider a struggle to believe when I'm reading them given how I view the lore, and they're not to my tastes, but I'd never say they were wrong. Just a changeable, nebulous concept viewed through a different lens...

 

(...Which is ultimately something that applies to all 40K, and - as has been drummed into me many times down the years - the point of why they made the setting the way they did.)

Edited October 25, 2017 by A D-B