The Curse of Dan Abnett

[shatter]

I like Abnett. He writes nice heroic fantasy. I use the definition of sci-fi by Dammeron on page 3 because I'm an effete ponce.

 

I think he's ( A D-B ) right regarding his peers (95%) defining suck. I've enjoyed 4 books from a decent dent in the BL catalog and Abnett wrote 3 of them.

 

I prefer to read books that make me struggle to keep up. Not many (authors) do it. Most readers do not like to struggle and instead read 'for pleasure'. I read Abnett knowing it most definitely will be for pleasure. And that's OK.

 

Hard to say if Abnett could 'make me struggle' as he's not writing strictly for himself despite apparently loving the universe and enjoying it (the license?).

 

I hope he continues to define what is good in BL and 40k fiction for many more years.

 

William Gibson is OK. He writes fairly solid sci-fi.

 

Iain M Banks is wearying to great. He writes somewhere between a melodrama and a psychological thriller with a heavy sci-fi element. Use of Weapons left me changed. Consider Phlebas is the best book to start should one have an interest in a new universe to explore (read Culture Novels). The Algebraist was one of his worst novels if you ask me. Under Iain Banks, he writes contemporary fiction. The Wasp Factory I enjoyed whilst being nicely disturbed.

 

Frank Herbert was an inspiration to a great many including the 40k universe itself (to a point). Made me the atheist I am today. I can't read his kid's 'work'. The disappointment that it's clearly not Frank ruins it for me. =(

I'm a Frankophile. I have a signed copy of the first publication of Destination:Void.

 

Peter F Hamilton is OK and quite prolific. He too usually writes with a heavy sci-fi element.

 

I liked the formula Stephen Donaldson used in The Gap series. Angus Thermopyle was a great character in a great story. The fact that it was fair sci-fi was a bonus. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever - toilet paper.

 

Dick, Asimov, Heinline, and perhaps Clarke are owed a big debt by the genre itself. Although they were crappy writers really, their ideas gave us most of the core avenues of sci-fi exploration beyond OMG ALIENS!

 

Herbert stands apart. While the 4 above are iconic, they were merely playing at it while Herbert was dead serious.

 

Reason for edits: I can't count and can be foolish.

[A D-B]

I think he's (Abnett) right regarding his peers (95%) defining suck.

 

Not sure Dan would ever say something like that. He's much too nice.

[The 13th Goat]

I think he's ( A D-B ) right regarding his peers (95%) defining suck.

 

At no point would an author from BL slate another. Unless he didn't want to write GW anymore. It would be unfair and out of line.

 

In regards to your belief that most BL books are bad, i think your just not as heavily in trenched in the Warhammer 40k mindset compared to some of their core readers. At least in regards to fluff. Sure you'll know the backgrounds and stuff, but stories on for example Ultramarines fighting Dark Eldar might have little interest for you if you collected Guard. However some (like myself) love the concept from the point of it being warhammer, regardless of race.

 

I'm not saying its bad to not be head over heals with some Warhammer 40k stories, or more focused on more conventional Sci-fi. But to many people, for better or worst, find the extent of their sci-fi reach existing in the BL's publishing lists. And their are some great books in there (and not only Abnett) that are well worth a read.

[A D-B]

I think he's ( A D-B ) right regarding his peers (95%) defining suck.

 

At no point would an author from BL slate another. Unless he didn't want to write GW anymore. It would be unfair and out of line.

 

Well, we're entitled to opinions as much as anyone else. I've been a Black Library fan for years, mixing it in with a lot of Fantasy and Sci-Fi, licensed and original alike. So when I say I like about 5-10% of BL's books, it's tempered by the fact I only like about 5-10% of all books that I read. Not much clicks with my taste, I guess.

 

If I come out and say "I think Writers X, Y and Z all suck", then yeah, I'd get in trouble. (I get in trouble with the editors and marketing a lot, anyway.) But stating a general opinion isn't so bad.

[Octavulg]

Sturgeon's Law at work.

[Lt. Smash]

The only real turn off of BL books is that some have really hard to follow fight scenes (generally the close combat ones are most likely to have this), they seem to go all over the place in terms of location, and time too. I espically hate when someone adds "the fight was over in a few seconds" or something to that effect, to make the combatants seem faster or to have better reflexes.

[Lord of Worms]

The only real turn off of BL books is that some have really hard to follow fight scenes (generally the close combat ones suffer are most likely to have this), they seem to go all over the place in terms of location, and time too. I espically hate when someone adds "the fight was over in a few seconds" or something to that effect, to make the combatants seem faster or to have better reflexes.

 

Fights in real life ARE over in a few seconds. On guard out of measure....pause....step into measure simultaneusly, one guy dies.

[Lt. Smash]

I never said fights weren't over in a few seconds. I'm just saying that adding "the fight was over in a few seconds" really detracts from the scene.

 

 

But that is just my opinion so feel free to disagree with it! :D

[Lord of Worms]

I never said fights weren't over in a few seconds. I'm just saying that adding "the fight was over in a few seconds" really detracts from the scene.

 

Oh, gotcha. I just think that sometimes they want to avoid the epic StarWars duels that last for hours. Ben Counter should have really toned those down... :D

[Lt. Smash]

Yeah, you got that right! :)

[Dark Mechanicum]

Oh yea.

[JEFF4i]

Few things,

 

I am a big Abnett fan, like most.

 

BL has some authors who haven't seen enough light yet. ADB is gaining momentum, also the Ciaphas Cain novels I thought were a splendid working of theatrical humor in the 40k universe.

 

People are too critical of Brothers of the Snake. As much as anything it was establishing a legion, and was essentially a 40k rendition of the Iliad. Iliad being the theme, one can only expect so much "Abnett-ness" if he committed to said theme.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

I love Abnett to be honest, for both his works in 40k and the Malus Darkblade series.

i als love sandy mitchell's cain books. they are the perfect dose of humor the increasing "grimdark" of 40k needs.

 

other than them, i havent got much appreciation for the BL authors. I havent read any A D-B that i know of yet, but what kills me is the incredible inconsistent nature of the rest of the BL authors. i utterly hate every page that macneil puts to pen in his fantasy works, but some (and only some) of his 40k books are spectacular (storm of iron).

 

WLK

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I'd advise you to read A D-B, he appears to very a talented author.. Cadian Blood is a good read, one of the better IG novels I've read and i have high hopes for his other work.

 

Hell, if anything.. At least his work is edited.. unlike Parker's Rynn's World.

[Dark Mechanicum]

So far for A-D-B you have: Cadian Blood, Soul Hunter, and some short stories in Heroes of the Space Marines and Legends of the Space Marines.

 

For Brothers of the Snake, I know he was establishing a full chapter without anything else to go by. And it did a great job of doing it. Just for my own personal reading it was a bit slow.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

So far for A-D-B you have: Cadian Blood, Soul Hunter, and some short stories in Heroes of the Space Marines and Legends of the Space Marines.

 

For Brothers of the Snake, I know he was establishing a full chapter without anything else to go by. And it did a great job of doing it. Just for my own personal reading it was a bit slow.

 

okay, i am actually supposed to borrow Cadian Blood from a friend of mine, so now i'll definetly look forward to trying it out. And loking at "Heroes of the Space Marines" i really enjoyed "One Hate", so that is a definite plus.

 

and i liked Brothers of the Snake, i thought it was a good look into the lesser seen parts that make up a Space Marine. not all bolter porn and the usual craziness.

 

WLK

[Dark Mechanicum]

I'm re-reading Brothers of the Snake right now with new eyes and yea, not just bolter porn but the look inside of a chapter and how it works.

[Rain]

In regards to your belief that most BL books are bad, i think your just not as heavily in trenched in the Warhammer 40k mindset compared to some of their core readers. At least in regards to fluff. Sure you'll know the backgrounds and stuff, but stories on for example Ultramarines fighting Dark Eldar might have little interest for you if you collected Guard. However some (like myself) love the concept from the point of it being warhammer, regardless of race.

 

I'm not saying its bad to not be head over heals with some Warhammer 40k stories, or more focused on more conventional Sci-fi. But to many people, for better or worst, find the extent of their sci-fi reach existing in the BL's publishing lists. And their are some great books in there (and not only Abnett) that are well worth a read.

 

I disagree completely. I've been a fan of the license for years, and know quite a lot of fluff, probably more than I would like to admit, and yet I find most BL books to be pretty bad. Now if by "the mindset" you mean wanting a fun read about explosions and lots of killing then I agree, it's kind of like the mindset that would make one want to watch an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, and that's perfectly ok but that doesn't make Commando or Eraser hallmarks of cinema (though granted, the first 2 Terminator flicks were good sci fi).

 

Thing is, that when people say "good book" or "bad book" they usually mean the books literary value, so in the case of fiction this usually includes believability of characters, setting, some sense of important or immediacy that keeps you interested in the events and character, and all that tied together by a plot that doesn't contradict itself, have huge internal logical inconsistencies or rely on hand of god resolutions or plot devices (ie. it was the work of CHAAAAAAOS). At a higher level this can also include allegory or what I guess you could call "poetic prose" (Oscar Wilde is a good example of this in my opinion) but this kind of thing will never appear in BL.

 

So yes, most BL fiction is "bad" but then that doesn't mean that it is worthless, heck I would be very bored if I didn't consume "bad" things once in a while just for the cheap fun, but that does not mean these things are of high intrinsic worth.

[A D-B]

In regards to your belief that most BL books are bad, i think your just not as heavily in trenched in the Warhammer 40k mindset compared to some of their core readers. At least in regards to fluff. Sure you'll know the backgrounds and stuff, but stories on for example Ultramarines fighting Dark Eldar might have little interest for you if you collected Guard. However some (like myself) love the concept from the point of it being warhammer, regardless of race.

 

I'm not saying its bad to not be head over heals with some Warhammer 40k stories, or more focused on more conventional Sci-fi. But to many people, for better or worst, find the extent of their sci-fi reach existing in the BL's publishing lists. And their are some great books in there (and not only Abnett) that are well worth a read.

 

I disagree completely. I've been a fan of the license for years, and know quite a lot of fluff, probably more than I would like to admit, and yet I find most BL books to be pretty bad. Now if by "the mindset" you mean wanting a fun read about explosions and lots of killing then I agree, it's kind of like the mindset that would make one want to watch an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, and that's perfectly ok but that doesn't make Commando or Eraser hallmarks of cinema (though granted, the first 2 Terminator flicks were good sci fi).

 

Thing is, that when people say "good book" or "bad book" they usually mean the books literary value, so in the case of fiction this usually includes believability of characters, setting, some sense of important or immediacy that keeps you interested in the events and character, and all that tied together by a plot that doesn't contradict itself, have huge internal logical inconsistencies or rely on hand of god resolutions or plot devices (ie. it was the work of CHAAAAAAOS). At a higher level this can also include allegory or what I guess you could call "poetic prose" (Oscar Wilde is a good example of this in my opinion) but this kind of thing will never appear in BL.

 

So yes, most BL fiction is "bad" but then that doesn't mean that it is worthless, heck I would be very bored if I didn't consume "bad" things once in a while just for the cheap fun, but that does not mean these things are of high intrinsic worth.

 

I don't really go for the "40K fiction is like literary fast food" approach. It can be as evocative and exploratory as any hard sci-fi, and just as well-written. While I'm the first to say I dislike most of it, I don't think it's any worse than unlicensed sci-fi or fantasy when that jazz is bad. It just comes with a greater stigma. The same way mainstream readers look at sci-fi and think it's automatically worse and takes less talent to write, so too does licensed fiction (especially licensed fiction based on a game) suffer when sci-fi fans look at it and think of it as universally awful, simple or juvenile.

 

40K does encourage a certain style of story, not only because extremely complex (or romantic, or nonviolent) writing is going to be frowned on by the license holders, but because most of the universe makes no sense at all, either through falsified physics, uncommon sense, or leaps of logic. So you're always going to struggle a little on that score. But I don't think it's fair to say there's zero excellent quality prose in BL, or no hope of it ever happening. Like any genre, like all of publishing, there's just not very much.

 

I saw a great quote recently that said this generation's most promising writers were still currently unrecognised, not because there weren't any, but because they were ignored even by the mainstream that hungers for them, as they were still overlooked as "genre writers".

[Rain]

I don't really go for the "40K fiction is like literary fast food" approach. It can be as evocative and exploratory as any hard sci-fi, and just as well-written. While I'm the first to say I dislike most of it, I don't think it's any worse than unlicensed sci-fi or fantasy when that jazz is bad. It just comes with a greater stigma. The same way mainstream readers look at sci-fi and think it's automatically worse and takes less talent to write, so too does licensed fiction (especially licensed fiction based on a game) suffer when sci-fi fans look at it and think of it as universally awful, simple or juvenile.

 

40K does encourage a certain style of story, not only because extremely complex (or romantic, or nonviolent) writing is going to be frowned on by the license holders, but because most of the universe makes no sense at all, either through falsified physics, uncommon sense, or leaps of logic. So you're always going to struggle a little on that score. But I don't think it's fair to say there's zero excellent quality prose in BL, or no hope of it ever happening. Like any genre, like all of publishing, there's just not very much.

 

I saw a great quote recently that said this generation's most promising writers were still currently unrecognised, not because there weren't any, but because they were ignored even by the mainstream that hungers for them, as they were still overlooked as "genre writers".

 

Well the one thing we can agree on I suppose is that there are few good writers in any genre. Especially now that "heartwarming" books are the surest way to rake in millions by looking despondent and talking at the floor on Oprah. What I disagree on is the limits of licensed writing. Take Legion for example, I think we both agree that Abnett is a good writer (and the thread is/was about him after all) now honestly I think Legion is more or less the upper bound of what BL writing can be. It had sympathetic and well developed characters, and a plot that while including sorcery and whatnot was at least internally consistent. So in essence, Legion was "good" but what it lacks and what all BL books by nature lack is some direct relation to and allegory of actual experiences, frames of mind etc that to me create truly good fiction.

 

And no I don't just mean shallow things like when Anakin quoted Bush in episode 3, I mean more along the lines of how say, Master and Margarita was both a "supernatural" story involving the devil and his various minions and a satire of the Soviet system. The story itself mostly dealt with the various largely whimsical characters, but the plot was kind of incidental to the message which was in this case satire. Alternately, a book can be really good by introducing or fleshing out some paradigm, 1984 did this with the ideas of dystopia, thoughtcrime, etc. similarly De Sade well, if you've read him you know what De Sade did <_<. To create such a message however, the supernatural and well, made up parts of the plot have to still be rooted in something people can identify with, and nigh immortal quasi-monastic superhumans are difficult to identify with. Even putting that aside (as there are books about guard) the whole universe is very different from our own and what's more (and worse) is that the author is responsible for keeping in line with established canon meaning that he cannot express himself as fully as if he was writing a universe of his own creation.

 

Anyway, I know that you're obviously a BL writer and I don't mean to offend you or anything, and as you've been told all over this forum you are far and away one of the best people BL have, actually I think you and Abnett are the only people whose books I will ever buy in the future as the rest has seriously disappointed me. That said, I believe that all truly "good" books come from the author's complete creative control, but then again maybe we have different definitions of good, being but a consumer and not producer of literature I can afford a snobby outlook on the matter.

[A D-B]

Well the one thing we can agree on I suppose is that there are few good writers in any genre. Especially now that "heartwarming" books are the surest way to rake in millions by looking despondent and talking at the floor on Oprah. What I disagree on is the limits of licensed writing. Take Legion for example, I think we both agree that Abnett is a good writer (and the thread is/was about him after all) now honestly I think Legion is more or less the upper bound of what BL writing can be. It had sympathetic and well developed characters, and a plot that while including sorcery and whatnot was at least internally consistent. So in essence, Legion was "good" but what it lacks and what all BL books by nature lack is some direct relation to and allegory of actual experiences, frames of mind etc that to me create truly good fiction.

 

And no I don't just mean shallow things like when Anakin quoted Bush in episode 3, I mean more along the lines of how say, Master and Margarita was both a "supernatural" story involving the devil and his various minions and a satire of the Soviet system. The story itself mostly dealt with the various largely whimsical characters, but the plot was kind of incidental to the message which was in this case satire. Alternately, a book can be really good by introducing or fleshing out some paradigm, 1984 did this with the ideas of dystopia, thoughtcrime, etc. similarly De Sade well, if you've read him you know what De Sade did <_<. To create such a message however, the supernatural and well, made up parts of the plot have to still be rooted in something people can identify with, and nigh immortal quasi-monastic superhumans are difficult to identify with. Even putting that aside (as there are books about guard) the whole universe is very different from our own and what's more (and worse) is that the author is responsible for keeping in line with established canon meaning that he cannot express himself as fully as if he was writing a universe of his own creation.

 

Anyway, I know that you're obviously a BL writer and I don't mean to offend you or anything, and as you've been told all over this forum you are far and away one of the best people BL have, actually I think you and Abnett are the only people whose books I will ever buy in the future as the rest has seriously disappointed me. That said, I believe that all truly "good" books come from the author's complete creative control, but then again maybe we have different definitions of good, being but a consumer and not producer of literature I can afford a snobby outlook on the matter.

 

The fact I agree with a bunch of this is why I need to take some time to crunch through it all in my head, else anything I respond with will be half-mulched nonsense.

[nurgling6688]

I just wanted to add that Dan Abnett is by far my favorite author. I have loved every book he has done (havent gotten around to eisenhorn or ravenor yet though) Titanicus, Legion and the whole of the Ghosts series have to be my fave books by him.

 

Grahm mcneil is very hit or miss for me. Fulgrim is one of the best books in the HH series, and A Thousand Sons is really good so far as well. Storm of Iron is THE defenitive Chaso Space Marine book, but i feel he has really killed the charatcer of Honsou in Dead Sky, Black Sun (which was the worst ultra book, and a pretty bad book all round. I feel like BL told him to combine storm and ultra so he did, but they didnt go together very well.) Uriel Ventris is a great character but that series has been slacking since Warriors of Ultramar.

 

Ben Counter is trash. He has some good books, like the first two Soul Drinkers, but after that the series went down hill fast. Galaxy in Flames was alright, Battle for the Abyss was horrible. Worse then Descent of Angels.

 

James Swallow...I tried reading the Blood Angels series back when it started, couldn't make it through the first few chapters. Flight of the Eisenstein was not very good in my opinion either, not horrible, but felt kind of flat as a follow up to the first 3 books in the series.

 

Sandy Mitchell is awesome, love Cain, haven't read the series in awhile, but i really liked the first few books.

 

Gav Thorpe is alright. I really enjoyed Angels of Darkness and the Slaves to Darkness series was really good as well.

 

William King was really good, sad to see him gone.

 

Simon Spurrier was pretty good as well, i would like to see more by him. I thought he did a very good job with Firewarrior considering he was working from a crap video game, and Lord of the Night was pretty good.

 

A D-B i have high hopes for, Soul Hunter is sitting on myself next in line to be read, and i enjoyed his short stories.

 

Honestly i think Abnett should write more of the BL's stories but he already writes alot and is having medical repercussions because of it, so i just hope he gets better. I am excited/a little scared for the Sabbat Crusade book they are putting out this fall, having other authors touch the amazing world that Abnett has created could be really cool, or completely horrible. Although maybe we will get some marine stories out of it, no one better touch the Ghosts.

[Kodanshi]

Soul Hunter is bloody MAGNIFICENT. It really gets even better as it get towards the end, in terms of characters, standoffs between antagonists, and general humour. I love it. I really really do! I didn’t expect to like it this much. I’m gonna have to check out Cadian Blood and see if it’s as good as this!

[Taerij]

I think Graham McNeil surpassed Abnett in terms of literary value in Fulgrim

 

While I've enjoyed every book so far, I have to agree that Graham is at the least on par with Dan, better in various ways for sure. I have found all the HH books very easy to get into, which I have struggled to do so since David Gemmell left us :/

 

William King was really good, sad to see him gone.

 

He's actually back...

[Dark Mechanicum]

William King signed another book contract with BL.

 

For me, re-reading ALOT of my books and trying to actually order them by subject: Guard, Chaos, Space Marines.

 

I am re-reading those books that made me want to kill myself and am looking at it not through a fanboy's eyes but through a writers eyes. I know most of the books have inspired me to try and write more and i'm working on fluff on my own stuff before writing something completely random.

 

here is an idea: look at the fantasy stories some of our favorite 40K writers and see what people think. We have William King who did the Space Wolves Series and Gotrek and Felix. Both very well done. Thats my example.