The Curse of Dan Abnett

[Eirik_Xenobane]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times. i adore his work and have never read anything from him that was below a level of excellence.

 

I think this is also a problem, I've read all the Horus heresy books except Legion and Abyss (just finished reading fulgrim, but i got greedy and read descent of angels after eisenstien, i know, out of book order but i love DA mythology).

 

I found each and every book, in it's own way, wonderful. I actualy really loved the Eisenstien and the explanation behind the genesis of the death guard.

 

Are we judging the sereies by too high a standard? Not everyone is as gifted as Dan Abnett

[SaintRephaim]

Yeah I love Dan Abnett too, the first 3, no 4 books of the heresy are my fave ever, i was very disapointed with Decent of Angels though

i think they should lock Abnett in a room and make him write heresy books until the end of time

[Brother Nihm]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times. i adore his work and have never read anything from him that was below a level of excellence.

Warning subjectivity ahead,

Don't get me wrong Mr Abnett has a lot of talent but, he's not William Gibson, Frank Herbert or Peter F Hamilton (whom I personally find to be some of the greatest SF authors). There's a long way from BL novels to traditional SF books, in terms of penmanship. Double Eagle and Brotherhood of the Snake were pretty bad imho.

 

Are we judging the sereies by too high a standard? Not everyone is as gifted as Dan Abnett

Quite possibly, but not everyone follow the same formula as Dan. ;)

Dan Abnett is undeniably a fan-favourite and I can see why, he works hard to put emphasis on 'behind the scenes events' in such a way that the reader is left to think up a lot of the side-action that isn't in the main focus of the story, and he does it well and with very little effort. (the latest Gaunt's Ghosts is a good example of this). This makes the story much more 'believable'.

Many BL authors have become better in recent times, among them Ben Counter. (which I'm still not a fan of). Just compare Dark Adeptus with Battle for the Abyss.

 

Personally I think that the single greatest 40k novel is Execution Hour, by Gordon Rennie, it simply has everything you'd want in a novel about the 40k setting.

 

 

My 2 Kraks

[Grinshanks]

Dan Abnett is a great writer, not just for his BL stuff but his work on guardians of the galaxy and the avengers have been ace too. Alot of other BL writers have not had as much experience as he has, but given the chance im sure plenty of them could be great writers too (i am not too keen on alot of BL stuff)

 

however im not too sure about this "best sci fi writer of our time" gubbins :P

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times. i adore his work and have never read anything from him that was below a level of excellence.

Warning subjectivity ahead,

Don't get me wrong Mr Abnett has a lot of talent but, he's not William Gibson, Frank Herbert or Peter F Hamilton (whom I personally find to be some of the greatest SF authors). There's a long way from BL novels to traditional SF books, in terms of penmanship. Double Eagle and Brotherhood of the Snake were pretty bad imho.

 

Are we judging the sereies by too high a standard? Not everyone is as gifted as Dan Abnett

Quite possibly, but not everyone follow the same formula as Dan. :blink:

Dan Abnett is undeniably a fan-favourite and I can see why, he works hard to put emphasis on 'behind the scenes events' in such a way that the reader is left to think up a lot of the side-action that isn't in the main focus of the story, and he does it well and with very little effort. (the latest Gaunt's Ghosts is a good example of this). This makes the story much more 'believable'.

Many BL authors have become better in recent times, among them Ben Counter. (which I'm still not a fan of). Just compare Dark Adeptus with Battle for the Abyss.

 

Personally I think that the single greatest 40k novel is Execution Hour, by Gordon Rennie, it simply has everything you'd want in a novel about the 40k setting.

 

 

My 2 Kraks

i liked double eagle alot, but ya brothers of the snake, imo that was lik 3or4 compared to abnett's normal standard of 10+

[OnlyInDeath]

I gotta say that William King is also a very solid writer. Abnett is definately my fav when it comes to BL writers, but I have to agree that he's not one of the "best" sci-fi writers of all time. When you compare him to the likes of Issac Assimov, Robert Heinlein, Philip Dick etc, he comes up as solid, but not nearly as original. I am happy to hear that Abnett is rumored to be writing the Battle for Prospero, as I think it will nicely move the HH series along after getting bogged down with the likes of Decent of Angels and Battle for the Abyss (which was one of the blandest novels I've read in a while). Ben Counter should be flogged for that one...

[Allerka]

He's good, and he's done great things for improving the history of 40K, but I wouldn't say he's one of the greatest ever. One would be hard-pressed to top the works of folks like Frank Herbert or Robert Heinlein. I still give him major credit for doing as good of a job as he has, though. I liked Double Eagle and BotS, myself, and now I'm reading The Saint (I've enjoyed reading the GG novels, having recently just gotten out of the Army myself, I've really liked his attention to little details about combat that most authors forget about).

 

Other authors that have, in my opinion, consistently delivered goods works also include Ian Watson, Anthony Reynolds, Gordon Rennie, and James Swallow. Were their works perfect? No, but I thoroughly enjoyed their stuff, and, to me, that's the most important thing.

[Lucifer Fellblade]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times.

 

He's good, and he's done great things for improving the history of 40K, but I wouldn't say he's one of the greatest ever.

 

but I have to agree that he's not one of the "best" sci-fi writers of all time.

 

Are you guys just deliberately not reading the post?

[Eirik_Xenobane]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times.

 

He's good, and he's done great things for improving the history of 40K, but I wouldn't say he's one of the greatest ever.

 

but I have to agree that he's not one of the "best" sci-fi writers of all time.

 

Are you guys just deliberately not reading the post?

 

Thankyou, wondered if anybody would actualy read that sentence.

 

He's no Frank herbert, the Dune series was a landmark in sci-fi. But Abnett IS the best sci-fi author so far in the 21st century I think ;op

[Brother Nihm]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is GW's best writer and perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times.

 

He's good, and he's done great things for improving the history of 40K, but I wouldn't say he's one of the greatest ever.

 

but I have to agree that he's not one of the "best" sci-fi writers of all time.

 

Are you guys just deliberately not reading the post?

 

Thankyou, wondered if anybody would actualy read that sentence.

 

He's no Frank herbert, the Dune series was a landmark in sci-fi. But Abnett IS the best sci-fi author so far in the 21st century I think ;op

You should pick up some of the works of the aforementioned Gibson and Hamilton then. :confused:

[Lestat]

I would have to agree that Dan Abnett is one of BL's best writers - I love the Gaunts Ghosts books.

But then I also thought that Sandy Mitchells Ciaphas Cains novels were of excellent penmanship.

Marine wise, I liked The Soul Drinkers books by Ben Counter and the Space-Smurf novels of Graham McNeill.

 

In my honest opinion, if you want to read some of the best non-GW sci-fi/fantasy novels, try any novel by Terry Pratchett. His works are pure, unadulterated genius.

[Pacific81]

Read Hamilton's 'Reality Dysfunction' series

 

Iain M Banks, 'The Algabreist'

 

Dan Simmons, 'Hyperion' or even 'Olympus'

 

Then make the claim again that he is one of the best sci-fi writers of the 21st century.

 

I'm sorry but you can't even place Abnett in the same category as the above mentioned writers. His books, and this isnt a criticism, are designed as sci-fi pulp and thats exactly how they read. Personally I think Graham McNeil surpassed Abnett in terms of literary value in Fulgrim, and also in the level of complexity and emotion he brought to the characters, and is perhaps the only BL novel in this generation that I could recommend to someone who has no prior knowledge of the 40k universe.

[Luther - the fallen]

I agree that he's not the best ever Sci-fi author out there, not even close, but of the 40k writers, he's definately amongst my favorites, him and McNiell.

 

I have the same reason as Allerka to love Abnetts books, his attention to the details in a common soldiers life is extreme(in the Gaunts Ghost series).

 

he doesn't however write the best action, far from it actually. I'd say, if you want a book with action, go for a McNiell, Reynolds or Counter book, however if you want some nice discriptions of the places, of the feelings and the mood of the place, I'd saygo for Abnett, he really captures those things..

 

just my two cents,

Luther..

[Allerka]

Are you guys just deliberately not reading the post?

Whoops. And here I was JUST complaining to a friend earlier today about people mis-reading a post of mine on another forum. :)

 

Yes, if you want to talk only authors currently writing now, then that definitely moves him up a bit more. I think Timothy Zahn writes some great stuff, too.

 

I completely forgot about Sandy Mitchell's stuff, too. Those are also great.

 

 

he doesn't however write the best action, far from it actually. I'd say, if you want a book with action, go for a McNiell, Reynolds or Counter book, however if you want some nice discriptions of the places, of the feelings and the mood of the place, I'd saygo for Abnett, he really captures those things..

Well, I don't think his action scenes are horrible, but I do think his strengths lie more in character interactions and scene descriptions. Counter does decent action, but his characters tend to be bland, and his word usage is downright awful in some novels (I'd almost swear Crimson Tears was written in another language and then translated through Google Languages). From a writing perspective, Fulgrim was definitely McNeill's best work thus far, too (definitely making up for his botching False Gods, though I still had a few small nitpicks and a couple fluff complaints). Each author has their own strengths and weaknesses, like anything else. I still think the important thing is, as long as we enjoy what we read, it doesn't matter if it's the greatest thing ever written.

[Arschbombe]

i liked double eagle alot, but ya brothers of the snake, imo that was lik 3or4 compared to abnett's normal standard of 10+

 

Really? I've read all of the Ghosts series, the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies, his HH books and Brothers of the Snake. I enjoyed Brothers of the Snake as much any of the others and more than some of them. I think he did a great job of bringing an obscure and unique chapter to life.

 

Was that it was a series of separate tales woven together instead of one unified story/battle narrative? Thinking about as I type now, I suspect that his original intent was to produce more than one book, but couldn't produce enough material or ran out of time.

[Zingbaby]

Are we judging the sereies by too high a standard? Not everyone is as gifted as Dan Abnett

 

Well honestly not one of the other BL writers are even in the same ballpark as Abnett. I do still enjoy reading some of the books by McNeill and others, and I'll basically buy any book that takes place in the 40k universe; but none of them are great authors, except Dan Abnett.

 

If Dan Abnett had been allowed to write the entire HH series we could have ended up with a Scifi Classic. The background story was already tremendous, we only needed a good voice to fill in the cracks. Instead however, GW opted to string this thing on as long as possible, regardless of the individual skill of each writer, simply because they know we existing 40k fans will continue to buy.

 

To answer your question - my opinion is NO. I would have settled for a complete 3 (hell even 7 as an absolute max) book series all written by Dan Abnett; why must we always greedily accept the lowest common denominator just because we love 40k?

[OnlyInDeath]

Are we judging the sereies by too high a standard? Not everyone is as gifted as Dan Abnett

 

Well honestly not one of the other BL writers are even in the same ballpark as Abnett. I do still enjoy reading some of the books by McNeill and others, and I'll basically buy any book that takes place in the 40k universe; but none of them are great authors, except Dan Abnett.

 

If Dan Abnett had been allowed to write the entire HH series we could have ended up with a Scifi Classic. The background story was already tremendous, we only needed a good voice to fill in the cracks. Instead however, GW opted to string this thing on as long as possible, regardless of the individual skill of each writer, simply because they know we existing 40k fans will continue to buy.

 

To answer your question - my opinion is NO. I would have settled for a complete 3 (hell even 7 as an absolute max) book series all written by Dan Abnett; why must we always greedily accept the lowest common denominator just because we love 40k?

 

Amen

[Mabrothrax]

I am not a big fan of Mr Abnett's writing. I had to force myself to finish the first part of the Eisenhorn omnibus, and quickly grew weary of part 2. It's back on the shelf. Fell Cargo made me RAGE!

 

I can certainly appreciate his style and why it is liked by so many, but it's not for me. Legion despite the fact that in retrospect is a very good book was absurdly annoying for the first few chapters - I nearly binned it!

 

Of all the HH series I'd have to say Flight is, in my opinion, the most well-written, but that's besides the point.

 

GW employ a variety of writers each with a certin area of expertise (except Gav Thorpe who must be burnt at the stake), Abnett's is clearly getting the gritty human side of 40k across, with a plethora of stupid made-up words, inflections and foibles. Bill King, where fore art thou? How I wished he would be handling the SW side of teh sacking of Prospero.

 

As for greatest sci-fi writer of the 21st century? Certainly not, but he'd be in the top 10. My own nomination for such a category would be the excellent Neal Stephenson.

[Battle-Captain Garro]

I have read many 'classic' sci fi authors over many years and of all of them I'm afraid that Dan Abnett is at the very top. His characters are compelling and believable and his understanding of the 40K universe is very much in tune with mine, he really brings it to life in a way that's almost scary sometimes. I've found Graham McNeill's 40K books to be somewhat disappointing and his WFB books to be unparalleled but it must be said that my opinion of these authors is a very personal thing and cannot be said to have any objectivity, I think Dan Abnett is the bee's knees and voraciously read anything of his I can get my hands on, if you don't that's cool to. I do agree that Dan should have written the whole series though it would have taken much longer to get the whole story out and yet I really enjoyed Flight of the Eisenstein, would it have been better under the pen of Dan, who knows...

 

As for Bill King, he left GW for new shores a long time ago. He really wanted to expand his writing beyond the GW universe. Even when he worked for them he would often disappear to Prague for months at a time with depression and so wasn't the most reliable author. In the old days of GW these foibles were considered part of his charm, however, in the current 'keep churning out the novel' climate as GW attempts to rake in as much cash as possible regardless of quality he wouldn't be able to get away with it. He ain't coming back.

[Eirik_Xenobane]

One thing I've noticed is a bias against 'pulp' sci-fi. How is a novel based on the 40k universe of any less value than a setting created by an author?

 

The Sharpe series is regarded as some of the best fiction of the genre and Forester's Hornblower series is excellent despite the fact it is confined to an historical setting and forced to follow the history of the napoleanic wars.

 

I think the Horus heresy series shows what so-called 'pulp' sci-fi can do.

[Mr.(Space)Marine]

I think the Horus heresy series shows what so-called 'pulp' sci-fi can do

 

I agree, I think the HH series is brilliant, even DoA, but battle for the abyss seems really bland and boring compared to the others, and I've only read the first few chapters.

 

I love the 40 universe so much that I will like almost anything that BL writes (I did say ALMOST anything...) and I guess thats the type of audience BL aims itself at.

[Pacific81]

The Sharpe series is regarded as some of the best fiction of the genre and Forester's Hornblower series is excellent despite the fact it is confined to an historical setting and forced to follow the history of the napoleanic wars.

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head right there Eirik :(

 

While I love the books of Bernard Cornwell, many of his stories follow exactly the same formula regardless of the setting. In the same way, you can sit down with an Abnett book (and this applies equally to any other BL author you care to mention), and you know exactly what you are letting yourself in for. It will most likely be fun to read, an energetic and vivid narrative, but there will be no earth shattering revalations. You will not set down the book after reading in the afternoon, go outside, and see the sun and the clouds in a new way.

 

This is the ability that some books have - just off the top of my head, something like Heinlein's, 'stranger in a strange land', Salman Rushdie's, "the ground beneath her feet" are two books which have had a profound effect on my life and have led me down new avenues of thought which had not occured to me before. I am sure that many people can think of books which have had a similar effect on them.

 

So, when a book is classed as 'pulp', I don't think that its necessarily a derogatory term, but the vast majority of BL novels could indeed be 'pulped' down, and reconstituted into another book which, names of characters and setting aside, would be more or less identicle to a title which has been written before.

[Octavulg]

Making up your own world doesn't necessarily make you better. I'd put Zahn's trilogy of Star Wars novels up against quite a bit of the "original" stuff I've seen (trying to think of a trilogy...everybody goes for umpteenologies now).

 

Creativity and ability at writing are very different things. You can have one, the other, both or neither. But it's a mistake to think they're the same thing.

 

For my money, Dick has creativity but little writing ability, while many 40K writers lack creativity (at least in a world-building sense), but make up for that with pretty good writing skills.

[Yodhrin]

Read Hamilton's 'Reality Dysfunction' series

 

Iain M Banks, 'The Algabreist'

 

Dan Simmons, 'Hyperion' or even 'Olympus'

 

Then make the claim again that he is one of the best sci-fi writers of the 21st century.

 

I'm sorry but you can't even place Abnett in the same category as the above mentioned writers. His books, and this isnt a criticism, are designed as sci-fi pulp and thats exactly how they read. Personally I think Graham McNeil surpassed Abnett in terms of literary value in Fulgrim, and also in the level of complexity and emotion he brought to the characters, and is perhaps the only BL novel in this generation that I could recommend to someone who has no prior knowledge of the 40k universe.

 

The Algebraist is stunningly bad. I know I'll get mauled for this opinion, my friends do so on a regular basis, but Banks is a terrible author. He has fantastic vision, and crafts settings very well, but his writing style is so obtuse reading his books are less a persuit of pleasure and more a tortuous mental excersize.

 

I want to pick up a novel and be immersed, not struggle through layers of metafore and verbosity that make The Illiad look like a pulp airport thriller.

 

Abnett is not the best sci-fi writer out there, not by a long chalk, but I can honestly say I've enjoyed reading everything he's published; Ian M Banks, on the other hand, is so low on my list of great authors as to be invisible to the naked eye.

 

But then, that just shows how subjective opinion on fiction is.

[Vash113]

Ya know, at first I was very picky about what 40k novels I picked up to read. But now I pretty much buy and read anything 40k, forcing myself through the worst and re-reading the best and I have to say as time passes I've come to see two very distinct aspects to 40k novels.

 

Fluff accuracy.

 

Writing skill.

 

The two things are very different, a well written book can be gotten through alright but if the fluff is terrible well... I flinch every time it hits a snag. If the fluff is accurate but the writing is bad it also leaves a bitter taste in the end even without fluff hiccups.

 

Overall the only BL writers that seem to do both well are Dan Abnett and Sandy Mitchell. The Cain series is just wonderfull, humorous, witty, tongue-in cheek fun every time I read them. Dan Abnetts works are also consistently good, Brothers of the Snake had an interresting format, while the Marine fluff had some hiccups Abnett has quickly gotten over that and seems to be trying hard to be accurate.

 

Other authors of the Black Library though seem to hit a lot of snags in one department or another and some are downright... inconsistent. Take James Swallow for instance, the Blood Angel series may have had good action, but good lord the fluff in them was utterly atrocious. Yet on the other hand Flight of the Eisenstein was compelling, interresting, well written and accurate. How could one author do so badly, do so well, and then do badly once more? The differences between FotE and the BA series are huge. Its almost like writing in the shadow of Abnett fueled Swallow to better feats. But other authors have troubles as well, the Ultramarines books by McNiell suffer from a lot of blatant fanboyism and very one note characters, while books like Fifteen Hours are not bad in the fluff department, but have plots that are utterly forseeable and blatant in their outcomes.

 

Anyway as for sci/fi in general I almost prefere pulp over the more heavy handed stuff. I just can't stand all the high handed sci/fi works that lavish on complex language over overly strange plots and in the end the result may be "artistic" and "creative" but it doesn't make for an entertaining or remotely enjoyable read. The same goes for much of the Fantasy genre, the unique stuff is too heavy handed, the more down to earth is utterly predictable.

 

Honestly I'll pick the sheer hilarity of the Cain Series over Dune or any of the more high strung best seller sci/fi works any day no matter what qualities they have... its a chore to read them in my experience, and no matter what genre thats not a good thing.

 

Anywho, just my two cents...