Quality of Black Library 30K/40K Fiction

[b1soul]

How would you rate the overall quality of BL fiction compared to that of other tie-in fiction (i.e. fiction based on an originally non-literary product)?

 

I have to give credit where it's due...despite my gripes about certain BL authours, the overall quality of BL's product is actually very good relative to other IPs.

 

I'm a fan of the alien and predator franchise, and I recently bought the new predator short story anthology. With regard to quality of writing, Black Library just blows it out of the water. No authour in that anthology even approaches the likes of Wraight, Abnett, French, Haley, ADB (and I have to admit McNeill is pretty good at writing the TSons and Annandale has his moments)

 

I admit the Halo prequel books by Greg Bear were quite good, but everything else Halo is rather bad IMO. Star Wars fiction is also quite lacklustre in my view. The popular Drizzt stories set in Forgotten Realms are very mediocre IMO. Stuff published by Blizzard (game company) has also failed to impress.

 

Maybe some of you guys have read stuff from more IPs than I have. My opinion is of course limited by the scope of my reading.

 

It does seem that BL's output, especially in the past few years (despite the odd period from 2013 to 2015), has risen in quality and we, as fans, are being spoiled with high quality (if not low prices).

 

What say you guys?

[USNCenturion]

Some people may drop the gloves at that Drizzt comment lol.

 

I’m not sure there’s quite as much lore to pull from in those other IPs you mentioned. 40k has a galaxy and over 10,000 years to pull from and invent new ideas for. I think that fact alone contributes greatly to its story possibilities.

[shandwen]

Comparing 40k books to random sci-fi books I like to say there is about a 50% chance the 40k book will be garbage, but that is marvelous as at least 75% of sci-fi series I start are garbage.

Even more, the more recent warhammer books have been drastically better. Many older ultramarines novels (or bluud ravens ones) were pathetic at best. The early 30k books were probably the turning point. A few of them we terrible, but they cleaned up the series with a better focus and bringing in better authors.

[b1soul]

Haha...well, I liked RA Salvatore when I was younger.

 

The level of depth in them is akin to that in King's old Ragnar stories though...kinda lacking.

 

Star Wars is also a massive galactic setting. I tried some of the more SW recommended novels...but I think the best BL novels still take the cake easily

[Kelborn]

Of all the franchises I'd call myself fan of, I read the most about Dune, Halo, Star Wars and Warcraft.

 

I'll leave Warcraft out. Dune was a massive challenge to read for me. Read the entirety of the prequels trilogies (can't remember their names now, but those, which dealt with the Butlers Djihad and the direct prequels to the movie itself (those about Leto Atreides). Back then, I was about 13 or 14 yo. Took me a while but I enjoyed all of them.

 

IMHO the absolute best Halo novel was and will always be: Halo Reach and The Flood (which covers Halo 1). Those two are the only ones I kept while donating the rest. The rest was mediocre - good / ok. I stopped when they started to write about the Forerunners. Never was into that kind of stuff.

 

Star Wars was my first major franchise and I loved to read its books. Some were good, more were mediocre. When they dropped the new canon, etc. I stopped reading SW books and comics. Was kind of upset spending that much of money and now everything was declared non canon. Althought the majority of SW was mediocre, imho, there are truly masterpieces I'd like to mention: the Thrawn trilogy (novels) and Knights of the Old Republic (comics). Those two are just insanely good. Read them several times and I'm never getting tired of them.

 

I believe the fact why I'm enjoying Warhammer so much is that I feel like it is more mature than the rest of the settings. Some might call it Grimdark. For me, SW is still a fairy tale, Halo is a pc game and Dune an old classic. Warhammer is current, more brutal, covering real life issues, combining Sci-Fi and Fantasy stuff in a decent way. Not to mention the entirety of different characters, possibilities, development and so on. Could you imagine a Sevatar in Star Wars? The coolest thing SW created was the (now legacy) Mandalorians (besides Jedi vs Sith and the Galactic Empire but you get the point).

 

Yes, the quality of BL and GW as a whole varies greatly from "well...ok" to "O M G !". Overall, looking back on everything I've read thus far, I have to admit that I enjoyed Warhammer related stuff the most. Though their are a LOT of battle scenes and some bolter pornish events, overall I see more high quality writers like A D-B, Chris Wraight, Guy Haley, Dan Abnett, John French and so on.

If you'd ask me about authors from SW or Halo, I could only name Timothy Zahn,I believe it was R A Salvatore and Karen Traviss (who did the Republic Commando series, another great one, I forgot to mention previously). That should say it all.

[Phoebus]

I’ll echo what others here have said: bearing in mind that tastes vary, I think it’s fair to say that the quality of Black Library fiction can vary substantially, depending on the author.

 

I think Warhammer 40k fiction enjoys an advantage over several other tie-in fiction imprints in that Black Library might be tied to a product (in this case, toys)... but they’re not bound to “snapshot” of their setting. Nor have the editors and authors bound themselves to very specific elements. Star Wars is a cinematic marvel, for instance, but for a very long time everything centered around Episodes IV-VI. There seemed to be little interest in exploring the galaxy Star Wars occupied; by contrast, there seemed to be too much effort being put in squeezing every bit possible out of even characters who were ultimately unimportant. It says a lot that, at a time when most of the Galactic Empire’s history, structure, and culture was nebulous, the bounty hunters from Empire Strikes Back (none of whom get a speaking line, Boba Fett excepted) got their own novel-sized anthology. Likewise, the various characters from the movies became apices of sorts: Luke Skywalker was probably justifiably “the best Jedi,” but then Han Solo also became “the best pilot,” Lando became “the best gambler/con-man/businessman,” and so on.

 

I also don’t think anyone can deny that, as Black Library has matured, there has been a sincere desire to explore various themes and concepts that shape the Warhammer 40k universe. Several authors, even ones who don’t get accolades for their style, have worked hard to breathe life into this setting so that its various facets “make sense” (within the dystopian reality they exist in, of course). Abnett, Dembski-Bowden, French, McNeill, Thorpe, Wright, and still others want readers to feel how oppressive the Adeptus Terra is, how inhuman Humanity’s greatest defenders are, how terrible the Inquisition can be, and so on. By contrast, how long was it before anyone tried to explain how an apparently benign and heterogeneous Galactic Republic became so blatantly intolerant of filthy Xenos... ahem... alien species? Has anyone done so, for that matter?

[Xisor]

Bill King and Andy Chambers were discussing this at a BLL a few years back. In their view, one of the things that makes Warhammer an easy IP to work in is: it's incredibly visual. You don't need to worry too much about describing exactly what Teclis or a Space Marine looks like because there's so much art (miniatures, sketches, paintings, other novels) that a huge amount of the 'hard work' (the stuff that's easy to get wrong) is already done.

 

Add to that that the Warhammer universes are by their nature sketched rather than exact and specific (e.g. writing Star Wars novels when there was ostensibly only 6 hours of actual canon), and what their opinion was: Warhammer is *easy* for the writers because it's a lot less stringent and any author has a huge amount of varied inspiration to work from.

 

In that regard, it means most of the authors' and editors' struggle can be spent on 'good writing' and 'telling a good story' without worrying about what might be 'big' publishing concerns. (E.g. what would Lucas say when he hears what I did!?!)

 

Anyway, I'm sympathetic to that line of thinking. It's not necessarily that A is better than B; but that there's some big factors at play that mean the rules of the game are... a bit different. Not entirely different, but not quite the same as comparing even Star Trek and Star Wars.

 

----

 

For my part, I'm always happy to beat the drum that:

- "Legacy" by Matthew Farrer is my all-time, all-genre favourite novel.

- "Seven Views of Ulgath's Passing" by Matthew Farrer is my all-time favourite short story.

 

Coincidental, I'm sure, that they're both in 40k. (And both Matt Farrer...)

Edited November 4, 2017 by Xisor

[The Doctor Of War]

The only other tie-in fiction i've had the same amount of exposure to are the various Star Trek novels. And in terms of hits and misses, Black Library is the more successful of the two. There are only a couple of Black Library authors that i won't read because i've disliked their past work, whereas there are half a dozen Star Trek authors who are absolutely awful. And if i pick a random BL book, the majority of times it's at the least readable, and usually has at least a few memorable, stand out quality moments. When it comes to the Star Trek tie in fiction, it's the reverse.
 

[Jareddm]

I'd like to bring up another contender that has been around a good while. The Magic: The Gathering novels. They enjoy a similar benefit to having most of the visuals of their setting already established. Especially the earlier series focused around Urza and Phyrexia. They enjoy a similar freedom of setting to 40k. Edited November 5, 2017 by Jareddm

[Marshal Rohr]

I was a big Star Wars book nerd as a kid, and recently I went back and reread some passages and I’ve gotta say it wasn’t as good as I remember. There was a piece of dorm room philosophy Boba Fett said to Princess Leia in an anthology I used to think was so cool, and when I read it again it sounds like some Facebook commentator. 40k fiction is similar. Movies have really made the sci-fi genre hard to get right, because pulp sci fi is just better when watched than read. Real, hard core sci-finlike the golden age writers is a different story.

[b1soul]

I think the top tier of 40K fiction - the best offerings by Abnett, ADB, Wraight, and French - is not just good for tie-in fiction, it's good for any fiction.

 

I wouldn't compare it to more hard sci-fi like Arthur C. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...I'd compare it to Herbert's Dune. I think that it approaches the quality of the Dune sequels (by Frank, not Brian and Kevin).

[DukeLeto69]

I think the top tier of 40K fiction - the best offerings by Abnett, ADB, Wraight, and French - is not just good for tie-in fiction, it's good for any fiction.

I wouldn't compare it to more hard sci-fi like Arthur C. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...I'd compare it to Herbert's Dune. I think that it approaches the quality of the Dune sequels (by Frank, not Brian and Kevin).

With a name like mine I could hardly not comment...

 

I agree with the Abnett, ADB, Wraight, French comment. All fabulous writers and I am so glad they write 40k.

 

But comparable to Frank Herbert? Hmmm not sure. I think you really need to set an author into the context of their time. Frank Herbert (like Tolkien) was groundbreaking. Some things people now consider tropes were established by Herbert. His writing (particularly as the sequels go on) gets increasingly dense and actually hard to follow and metaphorical (not in a good way).

 

These days I can honestly say I prefer Abnett's 40k fiction (when he is on top form). All four 40k authors you list (and I agree with) are far more accessible than later Frank Herbert. Perhaps French is the most esoteric in style.

Edited November 6, 2017 by DukeLeto69

[MrDarth151]

The problem with comparing any established, classical SF writers, like Herbert, to 40k is that 40k is written as franchise work, not original work. While there are benefits of that, writing for a franchise is far more restrictive and does not allow for truly groundbreaking work.

 

Coincidentally, I do think that Abnett's works have benefited from him not adhering to the franchise too strongly.

[b1soul]

You could "compare" Nick Kyme to Frank Herbert...doesn't mean Kyme is anywhere near as good.

 

I agree that the original Dune novel is too ground-breaking, too seminal, and even cream-of-the-crop 40K fiction falls short.

 

That said, the Dune sequels while still very good, are not quite as great IMO. I am talking about Dune Messiah to Chapter House.

[Conn Eremon]

=][= Though the topic in question is to compare BL work to other tie-in fiction, continued discussion should be specific to, or in direct comparison of, the Black Library novels.

 

 

It's difficult for me to compare tie-in fiction, as what I'm looking for in the tie-in fiction can be drastically different between different IPs or non-tie-in fiction. The only other IP-fic I really got into was the older Star Wars Extended Universe (EU) works, and what made a good EU book would not, in my opinion, make a good BL book, and vice versa. My interests in these settings are different, and so my approaches to their fiction are also different. And since there are so many different ways in which fans of these settings can enjoy these settings, such as wargamers vs fiction readers only, what makes one book good or bad can vary far more than just matters of opinion and equally without any being more valid than another.

 

Which is also why my original tastes in BL work is different from my current taste, as my general involvement with the 40k setting has shifted over time. Back when I first started getting into BL, which I think was when Mechanicum was first released, I rather enjoyed the works of King, Watson, even McNeil and Swallow. My interests have changed enough that what they used to provide isn't really provided any more even for nostalgic re-reads, nor am I enjoying the works of some newer (to me) authors, such as Wraight or Haley, though I feel like originally I might have. I've gone from wanting to expand my own knowledge of an already well-established setting to, having expanded, wanting fiction that pushes against the boundaries of what has already been established. And since I'm primarily into the setting as a DIYer, I'm also more inclined to favor those works that add to the setting in such a way that I want to explore it further in that manner.

 

But for both IPs, the vast majority of work fall into a middle-ground area of "I enjoy it because I enjoy the setting." You take away the weight of the setting, treat it as its own work, and honestly most of its value to me would be gone.

[Brother Lunkhead]

I think the top tier of 40K fiction - the best offerings by Abnett, ADB, Wraight, and French - is not just good for tie-in fiction, it's good for any fiction.

 

I wouldn't compare it to more hard sci-fi like Arthur C. Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein...I'd compare it to Herbert's Dune. I think that it approaches the quality of the Dune sequels (by Frank, not Brian and Kevin).

 

I completely agree. Before BL I could hardly read a single tie-in novel front to back. Tie-in fiction made me cringe for the most part. I even loved Ian Watson's old stuff, but I don't think it would have been near as good if he wrote them while sober  

[Ascanius]

There are always one or two leading lights in the stable of authors for any tie-in fiction, usually those who are also successful outside of tie-in fiction to one degree or another - though not always.

 

R.A. Salvatore for Dungeons & Dragons (or, more specifically, the Forgotten Realms), maybe also Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman with Dragonlance back in the day, Timothy Zahn (and arguably Karen Traviss) for Star Wars, Diane Duane for Star Trek, Christie Golden for Warcraft, et cetera. Success and popularity doesn't equal quality - I don't rate Salvatore or Weis & Hickman* at all - but for a significant proportion of fans of those properties, the name alone is a recommendation.

 

I think Black Library has a higher proportion of writers whose name on a book is a recommendation unto itself - not for everyone, obviously, but for many. Dan Abnett, AD-B, Chris Wraight, John French, add a few more from your own personal tastes. I quite like Guy Haley, David Guymer, Robbie MacNiven, and Graham McNeill.

 

* I used to like Dragonlance a lot, and collected many dozens of novels, but not coincidentally I also used to be 11-14 years old. I can name a lot of people who've written D&D tie-in fiction, but there aren't that many who get that "Cool, another book by X!" reaction from fans.

[mc warhammer]

There are always one or two leading lights in the stable of authors for any tie-in fiction, usually those who are also successful outside of tie-in fiction to one degree or another - though not always.

 

R.A. Salvatore for Dungeons & Dragons (or, more specifically, the Forgotten Realms), maybe also Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman with Dragonlance back in the day, Timothy Zahn (and arguably Karen Traviss) for Star Wars, Diane Duane for Star Trek, Christie Golden for Warcraft, et cetera. Success and popularity doesn't equal quality - I don't rate Salvatore or Weis & Hickman* at all - but for a significant proportion of fans of those properties, the name alone is a recommendation.

 

I think Black Library has a higher proportion of writers whose name on a book is a recommendation unto itself - not for everyone, obviously, but for many. Dan Abnett, AD-B, Chris Wraight, John French, add a few more from your own personal tastes. I quite like Guy Haley, David Guymer, Robbie MacNiven, and Graham McNeill.

 

* I used to like Dragonlance a lot, and collected many dozens of novels, but not coincidentally I also used to be 11-14 years old. I can name a lot of people who've written D&D tie-in fiction, but there aren't that many who get that "Cool, another book by X!" reaction from fans.

 

 

similar thing for me- it's hard to compare to other tie in/franchise fiction since its the only one (in novel form) that i read currently (also a recovering salvator and weis/hickman childhood fan). i've heard a couple of decent things about the tie in stuff for promotheus/covenant in the alien franchise, but nothing that makes me want to give it a go myself.

 

tie-in fiction not only has an in-built audience, but it also has an advantage in that it's depicting events that audience is hungry for. enjoyment of galaxy in flames and a thousand sons were buoyed by the fact that so many in the 40k readership were chomping at the bit to see those events depicted; so dips in quality could be forgiven.

 

the best 40k compared to the best in comic books? i'd say on par. compared to some of the best dr who novels of the 90s? lance parkins and paul cornell novels? on par.  lawrence miles, no comparison. miles stands apart. he has a reputation as someone who could have been as significant as heinlen to sci fi if he hadn't gotten "bogged down" in franchise fiction (and drinking apparently).  i'd  hand his novels like christmas on a rational planet and dead romance to non who or even non sci fi readers and be confident that they'd receive a positive reaction.

 

that's a bit harder to pull off with 40k. maybe horus rising? maybe the first heretic? i'd actually hand over watson's space marine in favour of either.

 

here's an article about franchise fiction that actually notes gw's drachenfels as a great work in the medium:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/16/shameful-joys-of-franchise-novel-scifi-science-fiction

[Phoebus]

There are always one or two leading lights in the stable of authors for any tie-in fiction, usually those who are also successful outside of tie-in fiction to one degree or another - though not always.

 

R.A. Salvatore for Dungeons & Dragons (or, more specifically, the Forgotten Realms), maybe also Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman with Dragonlance back in the day, ...

Pedantic note: Weis/Hickman and Salvatore actually made their name with the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms properties, respectively. Their mainstream bibliographies don’t mention anything before their first TSR novel entries besides 1-2 short stories for publications also associated with TSR/Dungeons and Dragons.

 

I think Black Library has a higher proportion of writers whose name on a book is a recommendation unto itself - not for everyone, obviously, but for many. Dan Abnett, AD-B, Chris Wraight, John French, add a few more from your own personal tastes.

Agreed, and while I come off as negative in many of my reviews, I think this needs to be said loudly and often. Black Library appears to have done a very good job of building a “stable” of very talented authors whose craft only gets better as time passes.

[b1soul]

Yup...BL actually has quite a few good to great "regulars"

[Ascanius]

 

There are always one or two leading lights in the stable of authors for any tie-in fiction, usually those who are also successful outside of tie-in fiction to one degree or another - though not always.

 

R.A. Salvatore for Dungeons & Dragons (or, more specifically, the Forgotten Realms), maybe also Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman with Dragonlance back in the day, ...

Pedantic note: Weis/Hickman and Salvatore actually made their name with the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms properties, respectively. Their mainstream bibliographies don’t mention anything before their first TSR novel entries besides 1-2 short stories for publications also associated with TSR/Dungeons and Dragons.

 

Even more pedantic note: if you reread my post, you'll note that I didn't specify whether or not their "external" success came before their tie-in work. ;)

 

It's an open question as to whether, say, Salvatore or Weis & Hickman would have been able to get their own novels published if they hadn't been the authors of New York Times best-seller tie-in novels - whether the tie-in fiction brought their talent to the attention of other publishers, or just made them aware that their name had become marketable.

 

For those writers, I'd say probably the latter; for a guy like Timothy Zahn, who won a Hugo Award for a novella seven years before his first Thrawn book, I'd say the former.

 

(By the way, I love that James Swallow's Nomad is described as "his debut novel" in a Sydney Morning Herald review I just found.)

[Phoebus]

Touche, good sir!

[b1soul]

James Swallow may be a great bloke and all that...but his BL novels have been consistent horrible IMO

 

Therefore, "debut novel" may be a dig out his previous outings. 

[Warpmiss]

James Swallow may be a great bloke and all that...but his BL novels have been consistent horrible IMO

 

But-but Flight of the Eisenstein! :(

 

Seriously though, while I enjoyed that novel there were many things that thinking back are not the best written. Grulgor is your average cartoon villain, we got barely any insight into Typhon/Typhus, Mortarion wanted Garro by his side even though it's obvious to the reader that he wouldn't go along with the plan (nothing in his character or demeanor indicated that he would), etc.

[bluntblade]

He also didn't do anything to convince me that these were anything more than company captains, or give the Death Guard any real scale.

 

More could have been made of Garro's high standing, and he and Mortarion should really have been more familiar, perhaps with several years of Garro campaigning elsewhere.