ADB wants World Eaters

[Zynk Kaladin]

On the flip side, I get bored if a scifi book has limited battles. I've read way too many sci-fi books that delve deep into philosophical concepts and have stunning character development, but limited action. These books may be intriguing, but very hard to keep reading because all the characters do is "talky talky". What I'm asking for is a balance between amazing fight scenes and established understanding of the Legion. This is something The First Heretic definitely did not have, which I understand now because the Word Bearers are not a war-like legion. However, I would hope the World Eaters would have more battle-length for obvious reasons.

 

Even the most minute detail of a Legion fights a battle reveals much about their character. Fights don't have to be just "he swings this and that happens". Rather, they're about certain problems that need to be solved with certain parameters and can be met using certain resources and tactics. If a battle has a good foundation of why its being fought, is thought provoking, has emotional value to the characters, and is entertaining then you're on the money. It's not hard to spice up the Marines a bit because they really do amazing things often in battles.

 

Or would you guys rather have Marines bark at each other for 300+ pages?

[Clewz]

Think balance is the key there.

 

I'm quite easy to please though as long as there arent any one dimensional heroes and mistouche twiddling villains i'm generally happy.

 

Its one thing that seems to annoy me about a lot of the 40k stuff as certain writers only see it in black and white and not the shade of grey its supposed to be. It feels sometimes like they haven't even bothered reading the intro blurb at the start of each book

[Iron Lord]

Khârn in the Tales of Heresy short story seemed rather interesting compared to some of his earlier, more one-dimensional portrayals.

 

Maybe it can draw from that?

[Captain Juan Juarez]

....because the Word Bearers are not a war-like legion.

 

Lorgar wasn't a war-like Primarch, his Legion was still bred for war.

 

There's a difference.

 

This also highlights the problem with such a diverse series being the work of more than one person too.

[Billuriye]

What I'm asking for is a balance between amazing fight scenes and established understanding of the Legion. This is something The First Heretic definitely did not have, which I understand now because the Word Bearers are not a war-like legion. However, I would hope the World Eaters would have more battle-length for obvious reasons.

 

TFH got plenty of war scenes satured with awesomeness. I guess you are hard to please.

[Zynk Kaladin]

What I'm asking for is a balance between amazing fight scenes and established understanding of the Legion. This is something The First Heretic definitely did not have, which I understand now because the Word Bearers are not a war-like legion. However, I would hope the World Eaters would have more battle-length for obvious reasons.

 

TFH got plenty of war scenes satured with awesomeness. I guess you are hard to please.

 

Other books set the standards for battles fairly high. TFH didn't meet those standards (except the Drop Site Massacre which was a small portion of the book) and I gave examples in my reply to ABD.

 

Lorgar wasn't a war-like Primarch, his Legion was still bred for war.

 

Good point and you're right that there is a big difference. However, how a Legion acts is more or less a reflection of its Primarch. I should rephrase what I said to TFH wasn't supposed to be a book about battles, but rather a portrayal of the Word Bearers, who are led by a Primarch who doesn't regard war as his main priority and as such the battles aren't as grandeur.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Lorgar wasn't a war-like Primarch, his Legion was still bred for war.

 

Good point and you're right that there is a big difference. However, how a Legion acts is more or less a reflection of its Primarch. I should rephrase what I said to TFH wasn't supposed to be a book about battles, but rather a portrayal of the Word Bearers, who are led by a Primarch who doesn't regard war as his main priority and as such the battles aren't as grandeur.

 

Of course I'm right! :P

 

The Legions can only reflect their Primarchs so much though; Terran Astartes for example spent various amounts of time campaigning without their Primarchs, some at the side of the Emperor, even if these would end up as a minority.

 

Plus, I think the mentality of a Primarch can only rub off so much on a Legion.

[A D-B]

Other books set the standards for battles fairly high. TFH didn't meet those standards (except the Drop Site Massacre which was a small portion of the book) and I gave examples in my reply to ABD.

 

I'm never going to write a novel like Galaxy in Flames, which is one of the ones I think you considered the best. And in all honesty, I'm not worried about ever pleasing people that liked it. With the dearest need for a semblance of professionalism, I'll admit this: I can barely stand to read that book. I do not think it's written well. At all. Nor do I think it captures any of the grandeur in the scenes it's trying to describe.

 

EDIT: It's a difficult situation. I like battles as long as they matter, and as long as they're interesting and add to the narrative, showcasing at least something in the story. I also need them to be well-written, or they lose me pretty quickly. But given the general response to The First Heretic, and how it's reviewed as one of the best-received (and on Amazon, I think it's rated as the best) novels in the series, I think it's fair to say I'm pretty happy with how I write that kinda jazz.

 

Yeah, there's more fighting in other stuff I've written, and I think those battles cling to rules of what I want from them. But if you're looking for a remarkably differently written novel to TFH, you're not going to get it, dude. In the World Eater novel, I'm sure there'd be more fighting set in rather more vital and epic circumstances, but the core writing style of the novel would be the same.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Other books set the standards for battles fairly high. TFH didn't meet those standards (except the Drop Site Massacre which was a small portion of the book) and I gave examples in my reply to ABD.

 

I'm never going to write a novel like Galaxy in Flames, and in all honesty, I'm not worried about ever pleasing people that liked it. With the dearest need for a semblance of professionalism, I'll admit this: I can barely stand to read that book. I do not think it's written well. At all. Nor do I think it captures any of the grandeur in the scenes it's trying to describe.

 

I like Galaxy In Flames, but I'd never consider it a literary feast.. Does that make me a bad person? No more than kicking kittens, apparently.

 

To be honest, few books in the series convey the sense of grandeur and the feelling that "This is a finer time, this is our time..." that the Great Crusade events should be pervaded with.

 

Most of the books have interesting single facets that manage to override the sense of disinterest that haunts the rest. For example, the last two novels I read were Nemesis and The First Heretic; the former was boring pretty much until

you see the interaction between the related assassins and later discover a portion of that history, with the skin-bound daemon seeming tacked-on.

With the latter, I had a vague sense of disinterest at the beginning beause I didn't feel a sense of connection with any of the characters, something which never really developped until

the Custodes really started getting involved

.

 

In essence, I suppose, I'm saying that you should judge each book on it's individual merits; would you have written the book like that? From what you say, no. Does that mean it's a bad book or that it's readers should be in some wasy lessened by enjoying it? Again, no because it's a matter of style; there is already that "fanboy" element to appreciators of your work but - whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, which is helpful here :P - it doesnt mean your way is perfect.

 

Forgive me if that seems like a rant or like it's supposed to be insulting or even is insulting, but it's much harder to articulate what I'm thinking than it should be.

 

EDIT: Adding stuff on to your original post is cheating.

[Zynk Kaladin]

In the World Eater novel, I'm sure there'd be more fighting set in rather more vital and epic circumstances, but the core writing style of the novel would be the same.

 

This is what I am looking for, actually. Believe me, I really like your writing style and I never demanded you to change it. However, I also like a deeper look into the battles. You might have had that in other novels, but I haven't read your others yet (I promise I'll get on that soon). I found that TFH did not have that 2nd aspect and I think you're right in saying that TFH did not need grandeur battles to tell the Word Bearer's story. However, lack of tasty battles does little to please me even with a damn good plot. It's like a steak without salt. The steak is awesome, but the salt makes it oooh sooo much better.

 

Perhaps the World Eaters novel you may write will be to my tastes because fighting is more relevant to a WE's story than a WB's. If so and if what you said above holds true, then I'm all for you sinking your teeth into the World Eaters. Good luck topping Skraal's character, though ;). If you do then I will be the first to shout praises of your book.

 

 

EDIT: Captain Juan Juarez, posting while I post is cheating aswell! I really liked Galaxy in Flames because it was like The Alamo for Space Marines. As an American with some appreciation for that, I wept manly tears at the end of that book. It may not have been written perfectly, but I can overlook such things because I'm not a writer :cuss

[A D-B]

it doesnt mean your way is perfect.

 

Naw, I'd never say it was, nor would I imply it. But it works for me. I think it's okay. Mostly. Well, sometimes. I find more flaws with it than anyone else. Comes with the job.

 

People have different tastes. The key in any fanbase is recognising that and just letting it happen, rather than hoping other people change theirs. I don't get annoyed when people say they like, for example, Galaxy in Flames. I can see why they like it: it had several of the most popular and eagerly-awaited battles in the entire 40K license to fuel it. Some concepts carry a show very easily, and that was one of them. That doesn't mean I think it's written well, or that it does those events justice.

 

Just a matter of taste.

 

I actually laughed when Horus said "Let the galaxy burn!" because after 20 years of waiting to see that moment happen, it wasn't the cold, brutal, emotional moment I'd expected. No staring at the world below, musing on that moment being the single fulcrum upon which the fate of the species would spin. No grim determination, no commitment to the rebellion, to a dark path that must be walked.

 

It was a yell with little build-up, and with an exclamation mark that made me literally chuckle. When I re-read it, I mentally add a "YEAH!" Dean-scream to the end of it.

 

In the World Eater novel, I'm sure there'd be more fighting set in rather more vital and epic circumstances, but the core writing style of the novel would be the same.

 

This is what I am looking for, actually. Believe me, I really like your writing style and I never demanded you to change it. However, I also like a deeper look into the battles. You might have had that in other novels, but I haven't read your others yet (I promise I'll get on that soon). I found that TFH did not have that 2nd aspect and I think you're right in saying that TFH did not need grandeur battles to tell the Word Bearer's story. However, lack of tasty battles does little to please me even with a damn good plot. It's like a steak without salt. The steak is awesome, but the salt makes it oooh sooo much better.

 

Perhaps the World Eaters novel you may write will be to my tastes because fighting is more relevant to a WE's story than a WB's. If so and if what you said above holds true, then I'm all for you sinking your teeth into the World Eaters. Good luck topping Skraal's character, though :cuss. If you do then I will be the first to shout praises of your book.

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

No, wait, okay. I get you now. Sorry, I'm working on my other screen and sort of paying 50% attention to both. It makes for bad and unfocused juju.

 

In regards to TFH, I actually sort of agree with you. I was never particularly happy with the opening fight (against the glass robot folks), but I had to include it because of the time frame. I often considered cutting it, but it needed that nod to the short story in Tales of Heresy. The Dropsite Massacre was... well, the Dropsite Massacre, and told as I wanted to tell it. Dead happy with it, and seeing two primarchs going to town. The final fight with the Custodians was a tricky matter, because - from a series standpoint - I was going with the idea that we wouldn't really see the golden boys really, really fight in detail until we saw them on Terra. That's why there's a faux 'fade to black', if you get me? With hindsight, that seems a silly idea. Like, ultra-dumb.

 

But you live, you learn.

 

On the flipside, I really wasn't big on Skraal. This came up a while ago on Heresy-Online, so excuse the cut and paste:

 

How, really, is Skraal any more developed as a character than the sentence "He is a World Eater", and how is Mhotep any more than "He is a Thousand Son"? The same question applies to the Space Wolves and Ultramarines. They are, uniformly, "An Ultramarine" and "A Space Wolf", in the rawest, most straightforward sense.

 

People complain about the characterisation in Battle for the Abyss - even of the protagonists - because they're all literally no more than "A Marine of that Legion" in the most basic, undeveloped senses.

 

It's so blatant that I sort of wonder if Ben Counter did it intentionally, and it was supposed to be a feature of the narrative rather than a flaw - and it's an interesting angle, too. But when people sometimes say they liked the characters of Skraal and Mhotep, I always sort of pause and think, well, they're not exactly developed or nuanced characters, they're essentially stereotypical members of their Legions in Situation X, and react wholly as you'd expect considering they still believe their Legions are loyal. I think what people find interesting is the fact the Legions are mixing in a cool situation, rather than quality of the characters themselves, but that translates more simply into "They were good characters", which is a statement I'm not sure I've actually ever seen backed up with anything more than that the reader liked the fact a loyalist World Eater and Thousand sons were doing general World Eater and Thousand Son stuff.

 

EDIT: That reads much harsher than I meant it, because it's out of context here, but I actually think the "pure" Legion character idea is pretty clever in some situations, rather than a cliche. It's something you don't expect to see, too.

 

/edit ends.

 

 

I will, however, try not to make the World Eaters suck.

 

If I do them.

 

At some point.

 

Maybe.

 

Leave me alone.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

it doesnt mean your way is perfect.

 

Naw, I'd never say it was, nor would I imply it. But it works for me. I think it's okay. Mostly. Well, sometimes. I find more flaws with it than anyone else. Comes with the job.

 

People have different tastes. The key in any fanbase is recognising that and just letting it happen, rather than hoping other people change theirs. I don't get annoyed when people say they like, for example, Galaxy in Flames. I can see why they like it: it had several of the most popular and eagerly-awaited battles in the entire 40K license to fuel it. Some concepts carry a show very easily, and that was one of them. That doesn't mean I think it's written well, or that it does those events justice.

 

Just a matter of taste.

I actually laughed when Horus said "Let the galaxy burn!" because after 20 years of waiting to see that moment happen, it wasn't the cold, brutal, emotional moment I'd expected. No staring at the world below, musing on that moment being the single fulcrum upon which the fate of the species would spin. No grim determination, no commitment to the rebellion, to a dark path that must be walked.

 

I get what you mean, I imagined it the same way I'd imagined Caesar "casting the die" at the Rubicon; with a sense of grim finality, with a layer of steel and determination beneath it.

 

"I was there. I was there the day Horus slew the Emperor."

 

That is the single best line out of the entire first tri-story arc and it comes as the first line in the first book, so I get what you mean.

 

How, really, is Skraal any more developed as a character than the sentence "He is a World Eater", and how is Mhotep any more than "He is a Thousand Son"? The same question applies to the Space Wolves and Ultramarines. They are, uniformly, "An Ultramarine" and "A Space Wolf", in the rawest, most straightforward sense.

 

People complain about the characterisation in Battle for the Abyss - even of the protagonists - because they're all literally no more than "A Marine of that Legion" in the most basic, undeveloped senses.

 

It's so blatant that I sort of wonder if Ben Counter did it intentionally, and it was supposed to be a feature of the narrative rather than a flaw - and it's an interesting angle, too. But when people sometimes say they liked the characters of Skraal and Mhotep, I always sort of pause and think, well, they're not exactly developed or nuanced characters, they're essentially stereotypical members of their Legions in Situation X, and react wholly as you'd expect considering they still believe their Legions are loyal. I think what people find interesting is the fact the Legions are mixing in a cool situation, rather than quality of the characters themselves, but that translates more simply into "They were good characters", which is a statement I'm not sure I've actually ever seen backed up with anything more than that the reader liked the fact a loyalist World Eater and Thousand sons were doing general World Eater and Thousand Son stuff.

 

I kind of got the feeling that actually the characters were totally ancilliary to the story at large; it could have been a mixture of any of the Legions it just so happended to be those in particular.

 

"Good character" is totally subjective though.

 

Vendatha, Aquillon, Tal, Lorgar - just from one book - are all good characters because you draw the reader into more than just their actions; there is an interest in to why they act and what drives them to do so.

 

Lorgar is a special case though, he more echoes the human weaknesses so it's kind of easier to sympathise with him.

 

 

EDIT: Also, because I missed it earlier, there is no such thing as a manly tear.. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a girly-man.

[Zynk Kaladin]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

No, wait, okay. I get you now. Sorry, I'm working on my other screen and sort of paying 50% attention to both. It makes for bad and unfocused juju.

 

In regards to TFH, I actually sort of agree with you. I was never particularly happy with the opening fight (against the glass robot folks), but I had to include it because of the time frame. I often considered cutting it, but it needed that nod to the short story in Tales of Heresy. The Dropsite Massacre was... well, the Dropsite Massacre, and told as I wanted to tell it. Dead happy with it, and seeing two primarchs going to town. The final fight with the Custodians was a tricky matter, because - from a series standpoint - I was going with the idea that we wouldn't really see the golden boys really, really fight in detail until we saw them on Terra. That's why there's a faux 'fade to black', if you get me? With hindsight, that seems a silly idea. Like, ultra-dumb.

 

But you live, you learn.

 

Yea man, I totally 100% agree. The Drop Site Massacre was very well done. I actually felt betrayed myself when the Raven Guard Captain got fired upon. It really angered me (in a good way) even more when he got insta-gibbed by a lascannon; his vengeance and fury never fully coming to fruition. It was a very compelling moment. There's plenty more I liked about it, but you get the idea.

 

It's like our initial disagreement was just masking our truer agreement. Some crazy stuff right there.

 

On the flipside, I really wasn't big on Skraal[...]

 

I feel that a character with attributes very cliche to their Legion are mostly non-terran Marines. The differences are really seen in the terran Marines (not Starcraft, hah). For example, Garro is of terran descent and he seems to be considered very different than the rest of his legion. I think Khârn is terran born as well and he seems to have a calmer mind than most World Eaters. Was Loken terran as well? I'm hoping you can still see my point even though my examples might be faulty.

 

A good blend of these two types of characters I think would be pretty interesting.

 

More to the point of Skrall, I liked him because he was badarse enough to, yelling at the top of his lungs, throw his axe cutting off that Word Bearer's arm. Suck it traitorous filth!

 

I will, however, try not to make the World Eaters suck.

 

This is all I could ever ask for. I think you'd do them justice! (yes I'm doing a complete 180 in my opinion)

 

EDIT: Also, because I missed it earlier, there is no such thing as a manly tear.. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a girly-man.

 

When a soldier takes a moment to shed a tear for a fallen comrade... I consider that a manly tear.

 

However, I'm neither not a soldier nor did I literally lose a comrade in battle, so I guess it was pretty girly of me. My point was the scene was very emotional and... *mumble* SHUTUP!

[Astalon]

For me, any battle scenes in the HH series so far which last longer than a few pages bore the hell out of me and I skip them. I enjoy the descriptions of the phenomenalism, "what its like", of the astartes physioology and sense experience. But i'd rather a nice dialogue or larger events.

[Lord Ragnarok]

For me, any battle scenes in the HH series so far which last longer than a few pages bore the hell out of me and I skip them. I enjoy the descriptions of the phenomenalism, "what its like", of the astartes physioology and sense experience. But i'd rather a nice dialogue or larger events.

 

For me the big draws are Primarch to Primarch interaction and uncovering of the mysteries. Battles are good, but battles are a dime a dozen in WH40k books. I want to see more of how the Primarchs related to each other. Who did Russ get along with? what about Angron? Who did they hate?(besides the known and obvious).

[douglas9521]

As much as ADB goes for more character/plot driven stories i actually find him one of the better combat scene writers in black library.He has a proper sense of scale that i like(the Lt. darrick,hit ratio i blame on an abnett gremlin;) I also like Macneill,reynolds and zou combat scenes also for the same reasons.I skip any abnett combat chapters like a plague so i've got no worries about that side of a WE novel so will just look forward to what he can pull out of the hat story wise with my favourite legion:)

[Sons of Horus]

What's great about how ADB writes combat scenes is that they're always really creative. They get me thinking "Damn! I never thought of that. That's freakin' awesome!" or something like that. The boarding action (void warfare in general) in Soul Hunter was an epic scene and Isstvan V was even more so. I can't wait for a WE novel if you write it. I have no doubt you'll do it justice.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

All this discussion is the reason it was so inportant that no one author had the HH series. Every book has it's supporters and it's critics.

 

For instance I'm one of the guys who loved the DA books, others didn;t and that's so inportant. To appeal to a wide range of readers the HH has to be different, has to be varied and has to cover the many different styles of writing and story telling.

 

The BL is blessed in that they have a good ange from authors who revel in action and battle scenes, authors who deal with subtlety and mystery and people who lay between the two extemes.

 

My only criticism is the amount of people who don't get this idea and point to books they don't like and say "That author shouldn't be allowed near a pen again!" or point to another and say "He should write ALL the HH books from now on!"

 

I really didn't like Battle for the Abyss, I found it lacking in almost every way from my point of view but that's fine, it wasn't my style, wasn't my cup of tea. Ben Counter is still one of my preferred authors, i can read the Grey Knights series over and over again and never get tired. In a way authors can be confusing.

 

Take Graham McNeill, i can not stand the Ultramarines series, Warriors of Ultramar is one of the few books that i couldn't even finish reading. yet he is one of my fave HH authors and I still rate Fulgrim as best in the series.

 

To conclude my rambling (not actualy slept for about 20 hours) I tink folks should take the HH series one book at a time and not expect too much BEFORE they read each book. Allotof the complaints have been from people who expected a book to deliver one thing but got something different, prospero Burns being a good example.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

All this discussion is the reason it was so inportant that no one author had the HH series. Every book has it's supporters and it's critics.

 

I agree and disagree.

 

I disagree mainly because in alot of cases a certain authors portayal of a character becomes the default of who and what that character is.

[Brannick]

You never know, A D-B may pen a WE novel for the HH series that doesn't feature a battle - unique or controversial!

 

:D

[Brother Captain Kezef]

You never know, A D-B may pen a WE novel for the HH series that doesn't feature a battle - unique or controversial!

 

:D

 

it's when we learn the whole thing was just PR, the World eaters where actualy tea drinking pacifists that negotiated the peaceful surrenderof worldsto the Emperor.

[Zynk Kaladin]

You never know, A D-B may pen a WE novel for the HH series that doesn't feature a battle - unique or controversial!

 

:P

 

it's when we learn the whole thing was just PR, the World eaters where actualy tea drinking pacifists that negotiated the peaceful surrenderof worldsto the Emperor.

 

...and if the other said says no, then **** will go down.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

...and if the other said says no, then **** will go down.

 

Well, there is a transition period. The compliance begins with rubber chainaxes and beanbag bolter rounds, but steadily escalates if nonlethal means don't produce results. <_<

[Roninman]

I just hope it has a suitable amount of battles unlike the more recent HH books (which put me to sleep more often than not).

 

"Suitable" is something that means something different to everyone. If you didn't like The First Heretic, you probably won't like any other HH novel I do. Them's the breaks.

 

That's why we love you so much. Anyone can write "They fight and they win cuz they is teh awesomz!!" To you, a battle is a means to an end in a story, which is exactly what it should be, not glorified battle reports.

Seconded. Sometimes I am getting tired of some parts in W40k book where on every fourth page is stated: he swinged his chainsword, he dodged his enemy, then killed him and so on.

 

Same here. Best BL books are ones with good plot, great dialogue between characters and few fight scenes that are adding to plot. Just battles or fights without contributing nothing to overall story might be great for younger audience, but is not for me.

[Aegnor]

I read this thread and keep mentally cringing thinking "don't give ADB a hard time - he might stop writing kick-ass books!" (btw just finished Helsreach - which I only bought because I like TFH, and it was equally kick ass - Soul Hunter is next I guess!).

 

I guess if you can't handle people discussing your books, you'd never publish anything, but kudos for responding with generally good humour. Now stop posting and reading here and get writing more novels!!! :D