What is your least favorite HH novel?

[Marshal Loss]

Most of us dont need the extra tweet's of clarification. I remember finishing Master of Mankind, coming back to the thread here, and thinking 'what in the name of khorne are these people worked up over, this is accurate'.

Don't blame ADB for avoiding these boards after that thread.

[Scribe]

No, and what a shame. One more lost in the Long War.

 

But we endure.

[bluntblade]

Hats off Phoebus, great post.

 

edit: as for my own least favourite HH novel...I can't decide. I've read everything except for The Buried Dagger, which I avoided because from what a trusted friend told me it would probably result in my death. There are many I'm not exactly fond of. Dishonourable mentions go to Unremembered Empire, Prospero Burns, and Old Earth. I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head. But Damnation of Pythos was the first time I became genuinely frustrated at the direction of the HH series so the trophy has to go to Annandale.

Having thought about how I wish the XVI^th had been handled pre-Slaves to Darkness, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on that in the hypotheticals thread.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Thinking about it further, the one thing I'll say in Prospero Burns defence, is that I think the one-sided showing of the Space Wolves was partly because it was intended to be a companion piece to Thousand Sons. Of course, the issue then is that Thousand Sons still presents the Wolves actions as almost correct, what with all the hand-wringing and declarations of guilt from Magnus. 

If we had Prospero Burns showing the Wolves as awesome, and the Thousand Sons as evil incarnate, with Prospero Burns showing the exact reverse, it could be somewhat excusable. Sadly, that's not what we got.

[Tyriks]

I started reading Prospero Burns to try to motivate myself to make an allied force of Space Wolves for my AdMech and vanilla marines.  I ended up starting Thousand Sons (and eventually all Chaos) instead because of how arrogant, hypocritical and self-righteous the wolves were.  They annoyed me to no end in that book (and most books since).  I couldn't even finish it (which is rare for me).  And I love studying actual Vikings, so I really thought this would be a slam dunk for me.  I really, really don't like this book.  Has to be bottom of the barrel for me.

[bluntblade]

I'd actually say Prospero Burns goes a long way towards addressing the charges of hypocrisy. I mean, this is the book where Russ shows his unfeigned desire to reconcile with Magnus, and it's shown that the Wolves were motivated by seeming interference by the Thousand Sons which claims the lives of one of their own. Not to mention that Scars follows this with Russ' clear regret over what happened.

 

I feel like the book is very much a victim of the List of Demands approach to media. I came at it wanting a story about who the Wolves were at the outset of the Heresy, got an interesting story about Hawser as well and was very satisfied once I keyed into it.

Edited May 7, 2020 by bluntblade

[Roomsky]

Spirited defence time?

 

 

In defense of Damnation of Pythos, I don’t really have anything to change Phoebus’ mind. I won’t dispute it adds very little to the series as a metanarrative.

 

But hell, it has original characters I can remember. It has actual arcs for said characters. People do things for understandable reasons, and do different things because of their variant perspectives. For those alone, it places in the top half of the Heresy, for me.

 

And I love Iron Hands and downer endings, so it gets even more subjective brownie points.

[bluntblade]

Which reminds me I must make that Seven Questions of Drama thread and inadvertently start another flame war soon.

[mc warhammer]

"agenda" is one of those words that gets thrown around a lot. 

 

if an author came into the 40k stable and attempted to change its nature to "noble bright" with every work s/he put out, that might be an agenda. if an author comes into 40k and just continues to push the existing style of the setting with their own spin,  i'd just call that an approach.

 

comparing 40k to lotr i think only works insofar as to highlight that 40k is meant to be an anti-lotr in some ways.

 

oh, and "prospero burns" is a beautifully written novel, though i can understand where some fans are coming from.

[Lord_Caerolion]

I do agree, outside of my criticism re: the way the Executioner angle was introduced, I think it did a good way of portraying the Legion as more than just "drunk vikings who like wolves". It's definitely not one of the worst.

[StrangerOrders]

A few random thoughts:

 

Dembski-Bowden’s characters saying “always” isn’t a reflection of his beliefs. It’s a reflection of their beliefs, and this setting is in the state that it is precisely because its primary actors are brainwashed super-soldiers, megalomaniacs, psychopaths, religious zealots, and so on. Yes, these people would have absolutist views — a good author should convey this.

 

Re: good and evil in the 31st Millennium:

 

“The war is over, Diocletian. Win or lose, Horus has damned us all. Mankind will share in his ignorance until the last man or woman draws the species’ last breath. The warp will forever be a cancer in the heart of all humans. The Imperium may last a hundred years, or a thousand, or ten thousand. But it will fall, Diocletian. It will fall. The shining path is lost to us. Now we rage against the dying of the light.”

Excerpt From

The Master of Mankind

Aaron Dembski-Bowden

Having read this, consider the Afterword in John French’s Slaves to Darkness.

 

The Emperor isn’t cruel, evil, or inhuman in the dictionary sense. His morality is on the macro scale. He doesn’t not care about individual people so much as he recognizes the existential threat the collective species’ actions, emotions, and psychic resonance pose to it. It’s not a case of whether the Emperor is the good guy and Chaos is the bad guy, then. It’s a matter of Chaos inevitably skewing toward violent extremes, which — when given the opportunity — intrude on the material universe with catastrophic results. The Emperor sacrifices the liberty and well-being of countless billions of human beings, but it’s not because he’s indifferent to the suffering inherent in his Imperium; it’s because the alternative is the nightmares of the Age of Strife.

 

The Cabal propose an alternative in the extinction of the human race, but as readers who have some insight into the workings of this universe, we know that’s utter nonsense. Chaos isn’t coded to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Human beings could go away, but the underlying cosmic mechanic wherein what sentient creatures do, feel, and think feeds destructive godlike forces wouldn’t. Slaanesh existed and didn’t exist before M29, but it was the Eldar hitting maximum levels of cruelty and decadence that led to it becoming what we know it as.

 

Anyways, what is my least favorite Horus Heresy novel? It’s probably a toss-up between Descent of Angels and The Damnation of Pythos. I tried to check my subjective tastes in writing when deciding, and really what it came down to is what novel did the least to contribute to the chronicle of Horus’s rebellion against the Emperor of Mankind. At best, Descent initiates a conflict internal to a legion that played a peripheral part in this war. At best, Damnation serves as a prequel to a plot device from a later novel. I won’t even get into the good and the bad where writing, pacing, characters, etc., are concerned. They just contributed so little to the epic itself.

Those are good points.

 

Not my meaning though. 

 

I meant Khayon as a narrator. Of course the characters should speak in absolutes (well, I'd debate Alpha Legion). I mean that I dont think its fair to expect people to pick up on that when there is nothing to contradict their narrative and the book goes out of its way to undermine other positions.

 

I also dont think highly of those that dismiss critique by grouping in every objection into a summary dismissal. I started by saying I thought his prose were fantastic, he is a good writer after all, but I do not think he excels at the portrayal of the unreliable narrator. And I confess to being tired of how quickly critique of him gets flanderized to being equivalent to the more abusive aspects of the fanbase.

 

Does that make the abuse he gets online fair? Of course not.

 

Does that make him immune to error? Same answer, and I am honestly a bit irked that its gotten to the point where I need to preface the point. 

 

And I hold to all authors in BL, as well as GW as a whole that this ultimately a transaction. Every buyer is agreeing to pay (often inflated prices) for their product and is very much entitled to voice critique on the product, so long as they are respectful. For the same reason you are entitled to go on Amazon or what have you and rate your product. Similarly, the writer is free to react to critique in any manner which pleases them, so long as they are respectful.

 

I do not hold particularly well to the idea that flaws other readers see in a writer are entirely their own fault. Some fans act out of line, some fans do not bother to read. Just because you easily intuit an author's PoV does not make it either obvious or mark your perspective as better or worse than those that do not.

 

And to reiterate the point, I do not think my gripes make him a poor author. I think a bad author is forgettable while a good author with quirks that bother you is usually more likely to stay in your mind long enough to be disliked. 

[mc warhammer]

i hear you, strangerorders.

 

to a point, every character ever written is an unreliable narrator. every character is biased. and while most authors might approach it that way, most audiences don't. audiences tend to accept that the truth in the character's eyes is the truth they are meant to view the story through. unless explicitly instructed to do otherwise.

 

notable examples of unreliable narrators involve measuring and assessing the levels of contrast and concurrence between narrator viewpoints and what happens in the story. "barry lyndon" is a good example (and even that is hotly debated)

 

haley's nighthaunter, spurrier's zso sahaal  and adb's nightlords all do it in different ways. and that's the thing, it's a device that has a lot of different executions. i can think of at least 6 different styles of unreliable narration and there's bound to be more.

 

i honestly don't recall enough of the black legion series to comment (i just wasn't that gripped by it), but i suspect khayon is an unreliable narrator in the way keyser söze is in "the usual suspects". it's hard to comment without the final act.

[b1soul]

"I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head."

 

Which book was this? Which part?

[StrangerOrders]

i hear you, strangerorders.

 

to a point, every character ever written is an unreliable narrator. every character is biased. and while most authors might approach it that way, most audiences don't. audiences tend to accept that the truth in the character's eyes is the truth they are meant to view the story through. unless explicitly instructed to do otherwise.

 

notable examples of unreliable narrators involve measuring and assessing the levels of contrast and concurrence between narrator viewpoints and what happens in the story. "barry lyndon" is a good example (and even that is hotly debated)

 

haley's nighthaunter, spurrier's zso sahaal  and adb's nightlords all do it in different ways. and that's the thing, it's a device that has a lot of different executions. i can think of at least 6 different styles of unreliable narration and there's bound to be more.

 

i honestly don't recall enough of the black legion series to comment (i just wasn't that gripped by it), but i suspect khayon is an unreliable narrator in the way keyser söze is in "the usual suspects". it's hard to comment without the final act.

Trouble is that you do tend to believe Kujan and he isnt portrayed as a fool.

 

Khayon's captors know next to nothing and think that knowing what a 'Cthonia' is is a great feat.

 

They dont make a good basis to follow the story from.

 

Thats the thing though, any good Unreliable Narrator story has another PoV or another observer at least as bright as the audience. They dont have to be a great one, but they need some credibility.

 

To use the Night Haunter, you do not tend to think that highly of the other PoVs but they are very much at odds with Kurze's narrative and you can pick up easily on what's shady.

 

My objection is in burying the lead too deeply. Its great that some folks pick up on it quickly, I dont begrudge them their stance. What I do begrudge is the assumption that because you get it means that others should do so instantly and that their failure to do so is a result of their either not being as clever or well-versed as you are. 

 

And thats as regrettably common a view in the base as the aggressive folks that think verbal abuse will get them anywhere.

[Marshal Loss]

 

Hats off Phoebus, great post.

 

edit: as for my own least favourite HH novel...I can't decide. I've read everything except for The Buried Dagger, which I avoided because from what a trusted friend told me it would probably result in my death. There are many I'm not exactly fond of. Dishonourable mentions go to Unremembered Empire, Prospero Burns, and Old Earth. I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head. But Damnation of Pythos was the first time I became genuinely frustrated at the direction of the HH series so the trophy has to go to Annandale.

Having thought about how I wish the XVI^th had been handled pre-Slaves to Darkness, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on that in the hypotheticals thread.

 

 

Very kind of you & I'll have to do so. That would be a lengthy post. If you'd posted yours already I'd be interested to read that as well

 

"I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head."

 

Which book was this? Which part?

 

Old Earth, chapter 23. Some Justaerin teleport on board looking all badass, do nothing, and then the last Justaerin is killed when an Iron Hand throws a zweihander at his head. Peak Kyme

[mc warhammer]

Thinking about it further, the one thing I'll say in Prospero Burns defence, is that I think the one-sided showing of the Space Wolves was partly because it was intended to be a companion piece to Thousand Sons. Of course, the issue then is that Thousand Sons still presents the Wolves actions as almost correct, what with all the hand-wringing and declarations of guilt from Magnus. 

If we had Prospero Burns showing the Wolves as awesome, and the Thousand Sons as evil incarnate, with Prospero Burns showing the exact reverse, it could be somewhat excusable. Sadly, that's not what we got.

 

adding to that, i'd throw in there that "prospero burns" is set during a time where the wolves are at their peak- they are full of righteousness and certainty. this is them at their best, completely oblivious to being manipulated.

 

i'd also add that chaos does successfully dupe them in the book. the audience sees it but they don't.

[StrangerOrders]

 

Thinking about it further, the one thing I'll say in Prospero Burns defence, is that I think the one-sided showing of the Space Wolves was partly because it was intended to be a companion piece to Thousand Sons. Of course, the issue then is that Thousand Sons still presents the Wolves actions as almost correct, what with all the hand-wringing and declarations of guilt from Magnus. 

If we had Prospero Burns showing the Wolves as awesome, and the Thousand Sons as evil incarnate, with Prospero Burns showing the exact reverse, it could be somewhat excusable. Sadly, that's not what we got.

 

adding to that, i'd throw in there that "prospero burns" is set during a time where the wolves are at their peak- they are full of righteousness and certainty. this is them at their best, completely oblivious to being manipulated.

 

i'd also add that chaos does successfully dupe them in the book. the audience sees it but they don't.

 

Its kinda amazing how much Inferno re-contextualizes that book.

 

It made my PoV switch from your camp to seeing them as being so done with being treated like trash that they are looking for an excuse to take someone's head off. 

 

Although it makes it shocking that they aren't specifically looking to take Horus's head off. He did them much dirtier than anyone else in the Imperium (bad jobs, equipment, etc). 

 

You also get why they vaguely hate Hawser much more when you realize that half the reason they are in their situation is the constant bad press at the hands of the Remembrancers. 

[mc warhammer]

 

i hear you, strangerorders.

 

to a point, every character ever written is an unreliable narrator. every character is biased. and while most authors might approach it that way, most audiences don't. audiences tend to accept that the truth in the character's eyes is the truth they are meant to view the story through. unless explicitly instructed to do otherwise.

 

notable examples of unreliable narrators involve measuring and assessing the levels of contrast and concurrence between narrator viewpoints and what happens in the story. "barry lyndon" is a good example (and even that is hotly debated)

 

haley's nighthaunter, spurrier's zso sahaal  and adb's nightlords all do it in different ways. and that's the thing, it's a device that has a lot of different executions. i can think of at least 6 different styles of unreliable narration and there's bound to be more.

 

i honestly don't recall enough of the black legion series to comment (i just wasn't that gripped by it), but i suspect khayon is an unreliable narrator in the way keyser söze is in "the usual suspects". it's hard to comment without the final act.

Trouble is that you do tend to believe Kujan and he isnt portrayed as a fool.

 

Khayon's captors know next to nothing and think that knowing what a 'Cthonia' is is a great feat.

 

They dont make a good basis to follow the story from.

 

Thats the thing though, any good Unreliable Narrator story has another PoV or another observer at least as bright as the audience. They dont have to be a great one, but they need some credibility.

 

To use the Night Haunter, you do not tend to think that highly of the other PoVs but they are very much at odds with Kurze's narrative and you can pick up easily on what's shady.

 

My objection is in burying the lead too deeply. Its great that some folks pick up on it quickly, I dont begrudge them their stance. What I do begrudge is the assumption that because you get it means that others should do so instantly and that their failure to do so is a result of their either not being as clever or well-versed as you are. 

 

And thats as regrettably common a view in the base as the aggressive folks that think verbal abuse will get them anywhere.

 

i agree that some good unreliable narrators often have an observer as bright as the audience. the cop in "usual suspects" does suspect verbal's story is full of it, even if he gets it wrong. same with the emperor in "hero" with the stories nameless tells of the assassins. in both cases, the "bright as the audience" character is right but also wrong.

 

sometimes the lead is necessarily buried deep in order to surprise the audience or twist the narrative at the end. m. night shyamalan films tend to live or die on how successfully that's done. so, i'm open to leaving my judgement until the third entry in the black legion series is out.

 

yeah, the night haunter is in the realms of a "fight club" style unreliable narrator. but that's only one version of the trope.

 

i wholeheartedly agree that blaming the reader for having their own personal read on a story has given rise to a bit of elitism in fan circles. you can read khayon as being straight faced about everything and that's still a valid read.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

Thinking about it further, the one thing I'll say in Prospero Burns defence, is that I think the one-sided showing of the Space Wolves was partly because it was intended to be a companion piece to Thousand Sons. Of course, the issue then is that Thousand Sons still presents the Wolves actions as almost correct, what with all the hand-wringing and declarations of guilt from Magnus. 

If we had Prospero Burns showing the Wolves as awesome, and the Thousand Sons as evil incarnate, with Prospero Burns showing the exact reverse, it could be somewhat excusable. Sadly, that's not what we got.

 

adding to that, i'd throw in there that "prospero burns" is set during a time where the wolves are at their peak- they are full of righteousness and certainty. this is them at their best, completely oblivious to being manipulated.

 

i'd also add that chaos does successfully dupe them in the book. the audience sees it but they don't.

 

Its kinda amazing how much Inferno re-contextualizes that book.

 

It made my PoV switch from your camp to seeing them as being so done with being treated like trash that they are looking for an excuse to take someone's head off. 

 

Although it makes it shocking that they aren't specifically looking to take Horus's head off. He did them much dirtier than anyone else in the Imperium (bad jobs, equipment, etc). 

 

You also get why they vaguely hate Hawser much more when you realize that half the reason they are in their situation is the constant bad press at the hands of the Remembrancers. 

 

still haven't gotten through all the black books, but yeah...the more viewpoints, the more complexities to their character....why not?

 

they can be both. i'd argue that they should be.

 

 

"I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head."

 

Which book was this? Which part?

 

Old Earth, chapter 23. Some Justaerin teleport on board looking all badass, do nothing, and then the last Justaerin is killed when an Iron Hand throws a zweihander at his head. Peak Kyme

 

 

i'm now imagining whole armies of ancient warriors throwing all their swords at the enemy force instead of using arrows. much awesome.

Edited May 8, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Marshal Loss]

 

 

"I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head."

 

Which book was this? Which part?

 

Old Earth, chapter 23. Some Justaerin teleport on board looking all badass, do nothing, and then the last Justaerin is killed when an Iron Hand throws a zweihander at his head. Peak Kyme

 

 

i'm now imagining whole armies of ancient warriors throwing all their swords at the enemy force instead of using arrows. much awesome.

 

Don't be silly. In real life, noble warriors would have easily been able to deflect thrown swords with their massive topknots.

[StrangerOrders]

 

 

 

Thinking about it further, the one thing I'll say in Prospero Burns defence, is that I think the one-sided showing of the Space Wolves was partly because it was intended to be a companion piece to Thousand Sons. Of course, the issue then is that Thousand Sons still presents the Wolves actions as almost correct, what with all the hand-wringing and declarations of guilt from Magnus. 

If we had Prospero Burns showing the Wolves as awesome, and the Thousand Sons as evil incarnate, with Prospero Burns showing the exact reverse, it could be somewhat excusable. Sadly, that's not what we got.

 

adding to that, i'd throw in there that "prospero burns" is set during a time where the wolves are at their peak- they are full of righteousness and certainty. this is them at their best, completely oblivious to being manipulated.

 

i'd also add that chaos does successfully dupe them in the book. the audience sees it but they don't.

 

Its kinda amazing how much Inferno re-contextualizes that book.

 

It made my PoV switch from your camp to seeing them as being so done with being treated like trash that they are looking for an excuse to take someone's head off. 

 

Although it makes it shocking that they aren't specifically looking to take Horus's head off. He did them much dirtier than anyone else in the Imperium (bad jobs, equipment, etc). 

 

You also get why they vaguely hate Hawser much more when you realize that half the reason they are in their situation is the constant bad press at the hands of the Remembrancers. 

 

still haven't gotten through all the black books, but yeah...the more viewpoints, the more complexities to their character....why not?

 

they can be both. i'd argue that they should be.

 

 

"I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head."

 

Which book was this? Which part?

 

Old Earth, chapter 23. Some Justaerin teleport on board looking all badass, do nothing, and then the last Justaerin is killed when an Iron Hand throws a zweihander at his head. Peak Kyme

 

 

i'm now imagining whole armies of ancient warriors throwing all their swords at the enemy force instead of using arrows. much awesome.

 

Its a fun read.

 

The TLDR is that the VIth originally had great press after Russ was found, they had a few years riding the high life and being widely praised.

 

But they got alot of jobs that had to be buried (so no campaign citations). Horus kinda hated them and made sure they regularly got thrown into the meatgrinder (he was also a touch salty about their name). They and the DA got to take the bulk of the Rangda which both consumed alot of their time, tainted them by association and involved a ton of purges that made most people kind of eager to put both legions out of their minds. And because most of this stuff got sealed, Iterators and Remembrancers basically started ignoring Wolf Campaigns (the book cites a few campaigns where they did the bulk of the work and smaller forces from other Legions such as the BA got the victory attributed to them though.

 

And People really didnt like that they didnt fit the archetype of Astartes so they went out of their way to drag them through the mud and portray them as human shaped animals rather than Astartes. So the Wolves basically took the Astartes way of couping and just started scorning the rest of the Imperium in return.

 

Its quite a fun read, but basically the wolves basically started out badly, got a momentary boost after finding Russ and then spent the remaining two centuries of the Crusade getting repeatedly kicked in the nards. Extra fun is their exemplary campaign, which is just one rather than the usual 2-3. Its basically a mix of the Expanse and Deadspace, cost the Wolves several thousand Astartes and then gets buried by the Court of Terra.

[Urauloth]

The Buried Dagger, which I avoided because from what a trusted friend told me it would probably result in my death.

 

I haven't read Buried Dagger for the same reason.

 

Of the HH books I have read, my least favourite would be False Gods if I hadn't made the mistake of reading Battle for the Abyss. I'm fairly certain there are books in the numbered series I would like even less, but I've gone out of my way to avoid them.

 

I have to join Roomsky in the small group of people who enjoyed Damnation of Pythos. It had problems, but I liked the characters and the atmosphere and I definitely liked the void battle. With a different ending and about 75% less bolter-on-lizard action it could have been a classic.

[DarkChaplain]

But.... the ending and those pseudo-dinos were great!

[bluntblade]

 

 

Hats off Phoebus, great post.

 

edit: as for my own least favourite HH novel...I can't decide. I've read everything except for The Buried Dagger, which I avoided because from what a trusted friend told me it would probably result in my death. There are many I'm not exactly fond of. Dishonourable mentions go to Unremembered Empire, Prospero Burns, and Old Earth. I still have PTSD from a Justaerin being killed when some bloke pegged a sword at his head. But Damnation of Pythos was the first time I became genuinely frustrated at the direction of the HH series so the trophy has to go to Annandale.

Having thought about how I wish the XVI^th had been handled pre-Slaves to Darkness, I'd be curious to see your thoughts on that in the hypotheticals thread.

 

 

Very kind of you & I'll have to do so. That would be a lengthy post. If you'd posted yours already I'd be interested to read that as well

I'm yet to do so. I've had a few vague ideas on that front lately.

[Indefragable]

 

And to reiterate the point, I do not think my gripes make him a poor author. I think a bad author is forgettable while a good author with quirks that bother you is usually more likely to stay in your mind long enough to be disliked. 

 

 

^ this x 1000.

 

You hate the ones you love. 

 

***********

I can't help but speak up about Prospero Burns. 

 

Dan Abnett is the kid in class who, for an assignment that says you MUST write on option A, B, or C, shows up instead with an essay on option J7 yet does it in such a compelling way that the professor gives him a good grade anyways. It's ballsy and would be a flop if the clear talent displayed and end result didn't pull it off, so the prof is forced to admit.

 

With so many of his works, with PB being Exhibit A, he goes in such a different direction or executes in a way so unexpected (in a literal sense, with neutral connotation) that you can't really fault any reaction. 

 

At the end of the day, for me and my tastes, I usually prefer that. Except when I don't. Then I despise it. Until I like it in hindsight. Except when I don't. 

 

But at the end of the day, as @Stranger Orders says, the simple evoking of that complex response is something I will usually err in favor of as a fan.