Chengar Qordath Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Didnt Mr Abnett once say that he didnt enjoy writing Space Marine characters as they dont experience the full range of human emotions etc and are therefore one dimensional and dull (or words to that effect). It doesn't surprise me that he concentrates on his human characters when writing Astartes fiction, he is playing to his strengths. Darkchild I have to say that Abnett's books for the Horus Heresy series have been weaker than most of his other works, and I think that's mostly down to the fact that they are supposed to be Space Marine books. Abnett is a great writer, but all of his non-HH books are focused on human characters, and they tend to go much heavier on intrigue and character development than the average Space Marine book. Even a great author will have some problems when you make him start working so far outside of his comfort zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthamal Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'm going to come out and say I thought it was the best book. true, it didn't really give us all that much "new content" but seriously guys, it was a F***king amazing work of fiction and I love it for what it was. No more need be added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I have to say that Abnett's books for the Horus Heresy series have been weaker than most of his other works, and I think that's mostly down to the fact that they are supposed to be Space Marine books. Abnett is a great writer, but all of his non-HH books are focused on human characters, and they tend to go much heavier on intrigue and character development than the average Space Marine book. Even a great author will have some problems when you make him start working so far outside of his comfort zone. Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I've enjoyed Horus Rising, Legion, and Prospero Burns much more than I've enjoyed, say, Titanicus or the whole Gereon arc in Gaunt's Ghosts. Given a firm-enough concept, Abnett could write a shortbread cookie recipe and make it entertaining. Personal tastes may vary, though, not everyone is down with shortbread cookies. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chengar Qordath Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I have to say that Abnett's books for the Horus Heresy series have been weaker than most of his other works, and I think that's mostly down to the fact that they are supposed to be Space Marine books. Abnett is a great writer, but all of his non-HH books are focused on human characters, and they tend to go much heavier on intrigue and character development than the average Space Marine book. Even a great author will have some problems when you make him start working so far outside of his comfort zone. Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I've enjoyed Horus Rising, Legion, and Prospero Burns much more than I've enjoyed, say, Titanicus or the whole Gereon arc in Gaunt's Ghosts. Given a firm-enough concept, Abnett could write a shortbread cookie recipe and make it entertaining. Personal tastes may vary, though, not everyone is down with shortbread cookies. :) Well, I've never gotten around to reading Titanicus so I can't comment on that. I should probably reiterate that his Horus Heresy books are still very good; I just think they're not as good as Gaunts Ghosts or Eisenhorn and Ravenor, and that mostly down to the fact that he doesn't like writing Astartes. Even in Horus Rising most of the Astartes characters are only really shown through their interaction with humans, while the other two books have essentially no writing from an Astartes perspective. There's nothing wrong with making that the focus of the book, but it does mean the reader's perspective is mostly limited to bystander humans, which is a bit problematic for a Space Marine book. It's a weakness his other books don't have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegnor Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Horus Rising is focused primarily on Astartes and is Abnett's best BL book IMO. He made the point in the foreword to one of the Gaunts Ghosts books that initially he couldn't see how to write stories re Astartes, as he found humans who feel the full range of emotions much more interesting, but that he felt he'd got his head around it after some more experience in universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brannick Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Just because it is titled the 'Horus Heresy' does it necessarily mean that the view-point has to be of a Space Marine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishSpit Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Given a firm-enough concept, Abnett could write a shortbread cookie recipe and make it entertaining. Personal tastes may vary, though, not everyone is down with shortbread cookies. Sigged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000AD Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I would go as far as to say it was relatively poor..... The glaring weakness was the lack of dialogue between Horus/Russ/Emperor on the bringing Magnus in / full blown attack on Prospero... Really slack IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Kezef Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Why do the Horus Heresy novels have to be about the Astartes all the time? The Imperium of MAN was essentilay about Humanity, even at their hight the Legions where but a drop of water compared to the masses of Humans out there. For every Astartes a few thousand ordinary Humans of the Imperial Army fought in wars of conquest or where left behind to secure what the Legions had taken. Dan Abnet recognises this fact, Legion and Prospero Burns are an excellent counterpoint to the Astartes books, I liked Nemesis for the very same reasons. Some of the authors focus on the Astartes themselves and do a very good job, A D-B eing I think one of my favourite writer's of astartes. But people need to understand that if the Horus Heresy series is to be more than cheap, marine fan-fiction it needs to have depth and character. For every Fulgrim and First heretic we need a Prospero Burns or Nemesis. Personaly I'd get bored as hell of just reading one book after another that is just about Astartes running around blowing stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon950 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The book was alright, better than Legion, but not much better than Decent of Angles. It's not that the point of view came from a human, it's more that they spent too much time on his back story. That, and the fact that they changed wording that related to the space wolves. In 2 books they are idiots, then in Prospero Burns they aren't, but then they switch back to idiots. Not to mention messing up how wolf priests, rune priests, and great companies are organized. Not to mention how they managed to make the saying" There are no wolves on Fenris" even more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Gladius Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 First post so bear with me........ I have read all the HH books so far, and honestly dont think they are all supposed to add as much as each other, I love the fact that some of the books push the story along, whilst others (nemesis, mechanicum) explore some of the other more niche elements of the history, that could be missed if each book pushed the story along to its conculsion. I enyoyed prospero burns, almost as much for the questions it asks rather than the info it gives us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Kezef Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The book was alright, better than Legion, but not much better than Decent of Angles. It's not that the point of view came from a human, it's more that they spent too much time on his back story. That, and the fact that they changed wording that related to the space wolves. In 2 books they are idiots, then in Prospero Burns they aren't, but then they switch back to idiots. Not to mention messing up how wolf priests, rune priests, and great companies are organized. Not to mention how they managed to make the saying" There are no wolves on Fenris" even more complicated. The Space Wolf organisation in 40K is TEN THOUSAND years after the HH, let me repeat that TEN THOUSAND years. The british army today is NOTHING like the British army Henry VIII took to the field with and that is just a difference of a few hundred years. I think Dan Abnett, of all the authors, has managed to nail this fact the best and leaves the reader to wonder how the Wolves changed over the next ten thousand years to become the Wolves of the 41st Millenium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Gladius Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 and on that note, can someone please tell me what 'there are no wolves on Fenris' actually means? cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Kezef Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 and on that note, can someone please tell me what 'there are no wolves on Fenris' actually means? cheers Damned if I know lol Been trying to figure it out myself, both books suggest allot of theories. I think it's meaphorical rather than zoological. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Gladius Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The way they have built up the phrase made me think there was some deep phylosophical meaning too it.........oh well! I do like the very stark differences between the wolves in the heresy and the wolves in 40k, and just how much modern events, and the split from legion to chapter has had on them. They have certainly changed a lot more than say the Ultramarines or Fists. Prospero Burns brings that fact out really well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon950 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The Space Wolf organisation in 40K is TEN THOUSAND years after the HH, let me repeat that TEN THOUSAND years. The british army today is NOTHING like the British army Henry VIII took to the field with and that is just a difference of a few hundred years. I think Dan Abnett, of all the authors, has managed to nail this fact the best and leaves the reader to wonder how the Wolves changed over the next ten thousand years to become the Wolves of the 41st Millenium. It's more of the fact that terminalogy is the same in Tales of Heresy and Battle for the Abyss, but then it's changed in Prospero Burns. It's like the authors of the different HH books change the wording around simply because they can. In the book they also say that there were no wolves on Fenris before we showed up, does that mean before man showed up on Fenris or before the Imperium and the 6th legion showed up. THe former would make sense, but the later not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustmanifesto Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 I would go as far as to say it was relatively poor..... The glaring weakness was the lack of dialogue between Horus/Russ/Emperor on the bringing Magnus in / full blown attack on Prospero... Really slack IMO... I agree. Enormous amounts of potential were lost here, namely an understanding of the event as occurring at the intersection of the relationships between Senior Imperial Leadership, which would have contributed huge amounts. a basic structural mistake, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Gladius Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It's more of the fact that terminalogy is the same in Tales of Heresy and Battle for the Abyss, but then it's changed in Prospero Burns. It's like the authors of the different HH books change the wording around simply because they can. But is that not just different legions from different worlds having their own terminology for certain things? They all tend to speak a standard (gothic?) language, but regional words are bound to remain. These armies spend a lot of time isolated from each other, and will develop their own versions of certain words instead of standard gothic, or that sit alongside gothic. In Prospero Burns we are mostly looking at wolves talking to wolves, hence they would use their own slightly altered teminology, if it were legion to legion then they might use different, more standard words to be understood. just an idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthamal Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 It's more of the fact that terminalogy is the same in Tales of Heresy and Battle for the Abyss, but then it's changed in Prospero Burns. It's like the authors of the different HH books change the wording around simply because they can. But is that not just different legions from different worlds having their own terminology for certain things? They all tend to speak a standard (gothic?) language, but regional words are bound to remain. These armies spend a lot of time isolated from each other, and will develop their own versions of certain words instead of standard gothic, or that sit alongside gothic. In Prospero Burns we are mostly looking at wolves talking to wolves, hence they would use their own slightly altered teminology, if it were legion to legion then they might use different, more standard words to be understood. just an idea Since one of the basis of 40k is the assumption that all human life originated on Terra, any planets throughout the galaxy would have to have been colonized at some point through history. It isn't unrealistic to say that the original colonists regressed to the level of vikings. I mean look at Fenris. Their ship could have crashed into one of the oceans taking all of their technology with it. The continual struggle to survive the world is more than capable of forcing colonists to compete against each other for survival, hence the origin of the tribes and their migration way of life. It's possible that this could have taken a few hundred years let alone through the few thousand of isolation brought on by the Age of Strife. and on that note, can someone please tell me what 'there are no wolves on Fenris' actually means? cheers Damned if I know lol Been trying to figure it out myself, both books suggest allot of theories. I think it's meaphorical rather than zoological. Theres a passage in the book where Kasper and LongFang are in a meadow hunting. During this hunt Kasper is saved by a gigantic Fenrisian Wolf. Longfang remarks that the wolf had already saved Kasper before only then he knew him as Brom. This refers to one of the tribesmen who met Kasper when he first arrived on the world, who according to Godsmote, failed the initiation ritual. Considering other sources state that failure of the ritual leads to the aspirant devolving into Wulfen, that pretty much explicitly states that the phrase "there are no wolves on Fenris" means that the "wolves" are actually failed aspirants devolved by the Canis Helix. Only way to be more explicit than that would be for Russ to come out and say so Speaks for itself pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galenwolf Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I'm currently reading the book right now. At the moment I'm liking the fact that the Wolves development into the 41st mil from their start in the 31st mil - seems to be mirroring the birth of the Germani Tribes Pre-BC that evolved as time marched on into to the Viking / Anglo-Saxon style culture. Just to note, the differences between the time my ancestors where Anglo-Saxon of the migration period of circa 400AD and the tribes of the Germani 1,000bc is huge. The Germani didn't believe in ownership of land, they thought it would corrupt you and make you soft so you only ever had what you could carry, or what your goats could be loaded with etc. They also didnt believe in leaders, you'd elect a war leader and then he was meant to disband his army. A tribe was just a series of clans and families each lead by the house hold elder. Arminius who defeated the roman legions was himself killed when he refused to disband and tried to set him self up as King. The Vlka Fenryka really REALLY remind me of ancient Germani tribes and the Space Wolves remind me of the great Viking/Saxon clans. I'm also liking how it revealing how quickly the Administratum tried to keep people ignorant of history and don't trust its knowledge. You have the scientists trying to create a new age of enlightenment and bring back the recovered knowledge of human history to the masses, and there is the Administratum doing what it does best, strangling the flow of information. What I hope to find out is if the Big E was in support of this, or if he was too busy to realize the Admini was doing a power play for mass control. They would have declared the Internet heretical because of the free flow of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ragnarok Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 It's more of the fact that terminalogy is the same in Tales of Heresy and Battle for the Abyss, but then it's changed in Prospero Burns. It's like the authors of the different HH books change the wording around simply because they can. But is that not just different legions from different worlds having their own terminology for certain things? They all tend to speak a standard (gothic?) language, but regional words are bound to remain. These armies spend a lot of time isolated from each other, and will develop their own versions of certain words instead of standard gothic, or that sit alongside gothic. In Prospero Burns we are mostly looking at wolves talking to wolves, hence they would use their own slightly altered teminology, if it were legion to legion then they might use different, more standard words to be understood. just an idea Since one of the basis of 40k is the assumption that all human life originated on Terra, any planets throughout the galaxy would have to have been colonized at some point through history. It isn't unrealistic to say that the original colonists regressed to the level of vikings. I mean look at Fenris. Their ship could have crashed into one of the oceans taking all of their technology with it. The continual struggle to survive the world is more than capable of forcing colonists to compete against each other for survival, hence the origin of the tribes and their migration way of life. It's possible that this could have taken a few hundred years let alone through the few thousand of isolation brought on by the Age of Strife. and on that note, can someone please tell me what 'there are no wolves on Fenris' actually means? cheers Damned if I know lol Been trying to figure it out myself, both books suggest allot of theories. I think it's meaphorical rather than zoological. Theres a passage in the book where Kasper and LongFang are in a meadow hunting. During this hunt Kasper is saved by a gigantic Fenrisian Wolf. Longfang remarks that the wolf had already saved Kasper before only then he knew him as Brom. This refers to one of the tribesmen who met Kasper when he first arrived on the world, who according to Godsmote, failed the initiation ritual. Considering other sources state that failure of the ritual leads to the aspirant devolving into Wulfen, that pretty much explicitly states that the phrase "there are no wolves on Fenris" means that the "wolves" are actually failed aspirants devolved by the Canis Helix. Only way to be more explicit than that would be for Russ to come out and say so Speaks for itself pretty much Agreed, unfortunately this places Russ's history in question as he is purportedly raised by wolves after he landed on Fenris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthamal Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Agreed, unfortunately this places Russ's history in question as he is purportedly raised by wolves after he landed on Fenris. True but I always thought that was a pretty crappy way to explain the upbringing of a Primarch anyways. Probably lack of anything original to go with the character of Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon950 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 He was raised by a human, it's just that he was found in the lair of wolves. Either Dan Abnett didn't do all of his research or the background of the Space Wolves, or like I said before he just put in what he wanted into the book and didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornestahl Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 He was raised by a human, it's just that he was found in the lair of wolves. Either Dan Abnett didn't do all of his research or the background of the Space Wolves, or like I said before he just put in what he wanted into the book and didn't care. Well for the first time i actually enjoy the Space wolves after having read prospero burn.. we finally have somethings thats based on gemanian/scandinavian roots but dont make it comical. Gone is the sci fi comical that is the space wolfs novels up to date, have never been able to understand why they had to write Ragnar as a goddamn comicbook hero in power armour. as for Abnett not doing his reasearch thats just BS of the higest order and he did what he wanted to do, give the chapter a sence of realistic behavior, traditions, language and culture. I think Abnett knew exactly what he was doing and cared a great deal about it and me for one love it. But hey thats just the opinion of an oldtime wolf general that is now pondering dustying off my wolves again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtonis Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 i am halfway through the book and i just feel that i was conned into buying this book. both the title and all the previews (even the back cover) seem to indicate that the book would be about the razing of Prospero and the conflict between the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons from the perspective of the Space Wolves. but what i have been reading so far is just some story about some Terran archeologist. if the book was named something different and not advertised as being the flip side of A Thousand Sons novel i wouldn't have complained. but right now i just can't find the motivation to keep on reading *EDIT* Just finished the Book and the very last part was what the entire book should have been. having said that i enjoyed this book for its take on the way the Space Wolves act and behave and their whole structure. especially the fact that Russ only liked to pretend that he is a "barbarian king" i think it brings more to the lore of Space Wolves than the Ragnar novels combined. what i really liked was the fact that it brought up that all the Primarchs were made for a different purpose and most of them (contrary to popular belief) knew that and wasn't jealous of Horus being made Warmaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.