The Curse of Dan Abnett

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

you know what vash, i utterly love the Cain series. the complete and total sarcasm displayed by cain, backed by his role as a commissar is amazing. i shudder to think what would happen if Cain met gaunt, or the emperor forbid, yarrick.

 

wolf lord kieran

[Arschbombe]

The Cain series was a good read, but I was getting a little tired of the "if I only I knew how much trouble that was going to be..." bits.

[Bigger-than-Jesus]

I think Sandy Mitchell should write one of the HH books if only because of how descriptive he is, the descriptions in the Cain books are just plain Hilarious(then again so is everything else in them). Easily the best books I've ever read(though he'd better not kill Cain off in Cain's last stand)

[Allerka]

(though he'd better not kill Cain off in Cain's last stand)

He can't, because the Cain books are supposed to be excerpts from his memoirs he wrote after retirement. ;)

[Pacific81]

.. Sandy Mitchell is a man? ..... :confused:

[Allerka]

.. Sandy Mitchell is a man? ..... ;)

Sandy Mitchell = pen name of Alex Stewart, so yes. Kinda like how Jack Yeovil is the pen name for Kim Newman (who wrote the atrocious Genevieve novels for WHFB).

[Pacific81]

On second thoughts: a female writing 40k fiction?? what was i thinking?? ;)

 

Kind of unusual for a guy to choose a rather ambiguous (but generally regarded as female) name though, normally its the other way around.

[TyrMadclaw]

I think Dan's work on "Legion" was excellent. The whole concept just spun my head around. Another highlight of "Legion" is the dedication page. One of Dan's dedication is to my son, Jack Abnett O'Reilly.

[Magnus Thane]

I'm up to Fulgrim atm and i loved the first three most.

People continually bash Graham McNeill but he's one of my favourite authors in Black Library.

Besides in my opinion there is only 'taste' when it comes to writers like this.

Making categories like movie or bookcritics do is something i'll avoid in forums. Because frankly i rarely agree with critics.

Like the Last Samurai, one of my favourite movies ever. I found it a masterpiece yet the critics bashed it entirely. (they also claimed they didn't get the ending Oo;)

[Imperialis_Dominatus]

Eh, in the end everyone's a critic. The Dark Knight and 300 are proof that people, somewhere, somehow, on some altered state of mind, will call anything trash.

 

I do think there's some value in critiquing novels, even BL ones. After all... they are making money for what they do, and if what they're making money for is no more researched or well written than the fanfics polluting the 'Net, something's wrong.

 

In some cases, something is already wrong.

[Terrastorm]

Dan Adnett, in my opinion is one of the best sci-fi writers around at the moment. I have read just about every BL books by him and they are all good - great, the best being the Gaunt ghosts series, and legion put a nice spin on things regarding the Alpha legion for me. I have also read some of his work from outside the BL, and can say that they are of the same standard, in my opinion anyway.

 

On a side note I can't understand the McNeill and Counter bashing around they both write good books, which I can happily pick up and read.

On the James Swallow front I agree that Flight of the Eisenstein was a good book, but I think the Faith and Fire is his best BL work.

 

My 2 cents on this matter.

[Allerka]

McNeil's generally been alright to me, but nothing special. Dead Sky, Black Sun was pretty bad with the blatant Star Wars references, as well as the fact that Uriel couldn't make up his mind as to whether he was or wasn't wearing his armor. But Storm of Iron and Fulgrim were decent (though a couple parts in Fulgrim nearly made me rage).

 

Now that I think about it, I can't think of a single female author to have ever written a 40K novel... That's kinda crazy. *Checks the BL website* Never mind, we have one woman, Debbie Gallagher, who wrote the Redeemer graphic novel series (good series, BTW).

 

Also, anyone looking forward to Titanicus? I know I am... ;)

[masterseth]

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.

 

Truer words were never spoken on the B&C.

[Pulse]

Also, anyone looking forward to Titanicus? I know I am... :)

Haha damn right!

 

I have to say though i think Abnett is by far the best author to write for BL, his combat sense could improve a bit when hes writing the scenes for the Astartes, but when hes doing the Gaunts Ghosts books, he is actually very good. I think he is definately the best at creating characters for the books, new takes on Horus and Abaddon and others like Torgaddon (the character reminds me so much of myself) and Loken. The Mournival will forever be stuck in my memory, awesome.

 

McNeill i think is a definate second place behind Abnett, although some of the other younger writers are catching him up.

[Godspear]

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

 

I actually think Dan Abnett is one of their more mediocre writers, with Lee Lightner being the absolute bottom of the barrel, so judging novels based on his work would actually put the other heresy novels in a much better light, in my eyes. Eisenhorn was great. Gaunt, Ravenor, Iron Snakes, Legion, all disappointments. It's almost as if he wrote his swansong before his BL tenure even began. It just doesn't seem like he's trying anymore, and the fact that everything he comes out with nowadays is heralded as some sort of flagship release just reinforces the behaviorist conditioning that's been employed by marketing departments since the 1930's.

 

Like Pavlov and his dogs, give 'em a tasty treat when the bell rings and you can condition them to salivate whenever they freaking hear it. BL's website is the bell, but Abnett took the treats away a long time ago. Now all we get is the same rushed waste of paper, no real plot, just: "Badass A fights this guy, I might hint at character development, or I might just have Badass A deflect a powerfist with a chainsword and call it a day. Meh, let's go with the latter."

[Rain]

I honestly don't understand people that expect literature from a genre about spaceships and rayguns. When I read BL I want pulp, I want Badass A deflecting a powerfist with a chainsword and then maybe singlehandedly killing 100 other badasses with a half loaded pistol and a tube of dental floss. I want this because that is the only reason I would want to read a BL novel over actual creative literature; to give my brain a rest and get the book equivalent of James Bond in space.

[Godspear]

I honestly don't understand people that expect literature from a genre about spaceships and rayguns. When I read BL I want pulp, I want Badass A deflecting a powerfist with a chainsword and then maybe singlehandedly killing 100 other badasses with a half loaded pistol and a tube of dental floss. I want this because that is the only reason I would want to read a BL novel over actual creative literature; to give my brain a rest and get the book equivalent of James Bond in space.

 

And why not? Sure, Robert E. Howard's pulpy Conan series is an excellent example of this, however, there's no reason why the idioms inherent in the science fiction archetype can't metaphorically parallel real ethical conundrums and contemporary philosophical, psychological, or emotional conflict. In fact, some of the best in the genre do this masterfully. Though, I think you misread my post. I don't genuinely expect the next Poe, Lovecraft, Shakespeare (though he's already been referenced in this thread, and not by me), or Dostoyevsky to come out of BL books. A large part of my problem is the seeming steady decline in the quality of work I see in these authors.

 

Example: First Grey Knights book: Huckin' Sweet. Battle For The Abyss: Utter Crap.

 

The problem is that once these authors have established themselves in the genre, marketing takes over and every piece of paper they wipe themselves with is considered high art, when in all actuality, most of them are poorly thought out and even more poorly written. Maybe there are time constraints, maybe they're just lazy. The other part of my problem is inherent in the established canon versus the story presented. When a guardsman can deflect a chaos space marine's powerfist with his chainsword, that to me is a contradiction of the story they are trying to illustrate, and further proof that these people don't think about what they're writing. I'm not saying these men don't have talent, I'm saying that they don't use it. Incidentally, another good example, and only because I see Hasoroth as being a reliable loremaster even if I have disagreed with him on occasion, is the apparent difference in quality between Red Fury and Flight of the Eisenstein, though because I haven't read Red Fury yet, I can't confirm it. Still, it illustrates my point.

[Quillen]

You guys are getting way too worked up.

 

It's Warhammer 40k books. And the sad trueth is it's not that good. Most people that read it love the game and want more fluff on the games story line. The writers for the most part are not good compared to other writers that wruite different stuff. You have to like the genre to like the books. It's a clique series.

 

Don't believe me look at who buys and reads the books.

 

Now Dan is good. I like alot of his books, but they are indeed shoot them up novels. No real charctor developement what so ever. It's still a good read thou. He writes pretty good. I do not get caught up in his books thou and have to read them to the end. They are not that good to me.

 

 

Same thing with BattleTech books. All of the writers wrote ok books and one guy did a really good job and had more interest then the others. Michel Stackpole. His books were the best for his genre and was read by non-battletechy guys and enjoyed. Yet you really needed to love Battletech to enjoy the books by most of the authers.

 

 

Is Dan abbet the best? NO!!! He is a good writer and does write the best 40K books in my opnion. And that is not hard as alot of our fluff books suck.

 

If you want to read a really good aurther pick up A Game of Thrones by George R R Martin. Then compare the charctors and the story archs and you will see what the difference is. Robert Jorden's Wheel of Time series is also realy good. There is also a series of shoot'em up space battle books buy a guy I am reading. Series is called the lost fleet. It's pretty good and I actually can't put them down that easy.

 

I know who ever started this thread is young and caught up in a love of the fluff andf what not, but there is alot of better writers out there. Dan is a good writer, but not the best in the world by any means.

[Rain]

And why not? Sure, Robert E. Howard's pulpy Conan series is an excellent example of this, however, there's no reason why the idioms inherent in the science fiction archetype can't metaphorically parallel real ethical conundrums and contemporary philosophical, psychological, or emotional conflict. In fact, some of the best in the genre do this masterfully. Though, I think you misread my post. I don't genuinely expect the next Poe, Lovecraft, Shakespeare (though he's already been referenced in this thread, and not by me), or Dostoyevsky to come out of BL books. A large part of my problem is the seeming steady decline in the quality of work I see in these authors.

 

Example: First Grey Knights book: Huckin' Sweet. Battle For The Abyss: Utter Crap.

 

The problem is that once these authors have established themselves in the genre, marketing takes over and every piece of paper they wipe themselves with is considered high art, when in all actuality, most of them are poorly thought out and even more poorly written. Maybe there are time constraints, maybe they're just lazy. The other part of my problem is inherent in the established canon versus the story presented. When a guardsman can deflect a chaos space marine's powerfist with his chainsword, that to me is a contradiction of the story they are trying to illustrate, and further proof that these people don't think about what they're writing. I'm not saying these men don't have talent, I'm saying that they don't use it. Incidentally, another good example, and only because I see Hasoroth as being a reliable loremaster even if I have disagreed with him on occasion, is the apparent difference in quality between Red Fury and Flight of the Eisenstein, though because I haven't read Red Fury yet, I can't confirm it. Still, it illustrates my point.

 

The problem is twofold, with one problem growing out of the other, you see, it tends to be easier to relate to human characters in a real world environment than it is to relate to nigh immortal superhumans living in an imaginiary world, and because of this, most truly talented writers stay away from the medium, not to mention the fact that franchise fiction constrains creativity. That said, I completely agree that some BL pulp is better than some other BL pulp (For example I liked Galaxy in Flames but hated Flight of the Eisenstein) but it is still basically "nerd porn" though some of it is good nerd porn.

 

As for the fluff inconsistencies, I agree that it is annoying, (like Hawke doing all he did in Storm of Iron, I mean really?) but hey, some suspension of disbelief is required. Also I think it's funny that you mentioned Dostoevsky and then mentioned how bad it is that some BL writers are just filling space and consider it high art when this is basically what Dostoevsky did as he was destitute most of his life and was payed by the page (which is why the middle section of Crime and Punishment is much ado about nothing). Anyway, I think we actually mostly agree but are just arguing about different things, cheers!

[Godspear]

The problem is twofold, with one problem growing out of the other, you see, it tends to be easier to relate to human characters in a real world environment than it is to relate to nigh immortal superhumans living in an imaginiary world, and because of this, most truly talented writers stay away from the medium, not to mention the fact that franchise fiction constrains creativity. That said, I completely agree that some BL pulp is better than some other BL pulp (For example I liked Galaxy in Flames but hated Flight of the Eisenstein) but it is still basically "nerd porn" though some of it is good nerd porn.

 

As for the fluff inconsistencies, I agree that it is annoying, (like Hawke doing all he did in Storm of Iron, I mean really?) but hey, some suspension of disbelief is required. Also I think it's funny that you mentioned Dostoevsky and then mentioned how bad it is that some BL writers are just filling space and consider it high art when this is basically what Dostoevsky did as he was destitute most of his life and was payed by the page (which is why the middle section of Crime and Punishment is much ado about nothing). Anyway, I think we actually mostly agree but are just arguing about different things, cheers!

 

Even if Dostoevsky was practically a hobo for most of his life, the Brothers Karamazov had more substance within its pages than all of Abnett's work combined. It's not even like Dan is destitute. There's no reason for him to write as shoddily as he has been. Dostoevsky was a Russian philosopher. You can't really get much more poor. Dan Abnett is a celebrated science fiction author, and probably lives quite comfortably. At least Dostoevsky had a reason to fill out some pages. That wasn't the point, in any case, though I appreciate the attempt to dismantle the ethos of my argument. I was using Dostoevsky as an example of an author that, even if his books got a little long winded due to his own financial constraints, wrote several classic pieces of literature of a caliber that you will not find in BL. Nit pick all you want, but that's a fact. I do agree, though, that it is more difficult to have your audience connect with characters like space marines, though I think McNeill tends to be better at it than most. I don't know if I'd go as far as to call BL Publishing nerd porn, though. ^_^

 

I'd simply say BL is exactly how we've been describing it: pulpy. I'd just like to see a little more cohesion between pulp and canon. We all enjoy 40k, and we like to see our universe illustrated according to the plotline developed by GW, not some lazy, overhyped comic book illustrator. On the flip side, his work with Mike Lee on the Malus Darkblade books was absolutely amazing, the only exception being a possessed Dark Elf taking out a bloodthirster in single combat.

[frootbat]

Without a doubt, Dan Abnett is... perhaps one of the best sci-fi authors of our times.

 

 

:cuss!!!!!!! :lol: best sci fi authors of our time????????? Adam Roberts? David Yurkovich? Harlan Ellison? Ian M. Banks? William Gibson? Are you saying that these people are inferior to Dan Abnett????

 

Each to their own but good lord he is a decent pulp sci-fi author. Entertaining at best. Meh. Maybe this just amounts to trolling but I'm kinda drunk so go figure.

 

Whatever makes you happy I suppose.

[DarkAngels/SpaceWolves...]

Dan Abnett is the best writer of BL period. None even compare in my mind.

 

 

-"Men of Tanith, do you want to live forever?!?!?!"

[The Emperor's Champion]

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.

Too too true.

I'll admit Tolkein's Lord Of The Rings is an epic and elaborate fantasy series, but it just goes too far and drags on and on and on. I've literally read the first half of The Fellowship Of The Ring 4 times and CAN NOT finish it. I skip to Two Towers and I can read the rest perfectly fine from there. R.A Salvatore's Legend Of Drizzt series, or Weis & Hickman's DragonLance series I can fly through book after book after book and be perfectly entertained.

These heavy fantasy and sci-fi novels are simply too much "The Scarlet Letter"* and not enough D&D. They miss the point of being entertaining to read.

 

 

*dragging out what should be a quick and easy description that should simply give a mental image and instead spending a chapter describing wooden doors to try and force feed hidden meanings into mundane crap, or 5 chapters walking in the woods glimpsing "dark riders" that could've been more than covered in a paragraph.

[Guest Herald of Desolation]

Dan Abnett = win.

C.S. Gotto = toliet paper

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

Dan Abnett is quite good, I have enjoyed the Horus Heresy seris so far apart from Mechanicum, which I just can't finish, and and the bland Battle for the Abiss, owever, none of the BL stuff I have read is as good as Sergei Lukyanenko's Night watch, and no one can come even close to Terry Prachett's discworld on any grounds, creativity, writing style or quality or entertainment value, if they were going to give an award for any of theese it would have to go to Pratchett.