Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 [*]When is the next book out for Throne's sake? [*]Is this the longest 'delay' there has been? [*]I have been using the hiatus to revisit some of the novels from the series. This has proved an enlightening experience, which book have you gone back to most recently and what did you discover there that you missed the last time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I've reread the first 5 HH books and also got the Age of Darkness anthology, which had its moments. What's the next one due out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Nihm Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The Outcast Dead, Due to hit in November, by the looks of things: http://www.blacklibrary.com/coming-soon/no...tcast-dead.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 "The outcast dead" by G-Mac is out in November, which is ages. i think the first 5 are still the best really and can be reread again and again to see where it "all began". I have just finished re-reading Legion and i forgot how very good it is indeed, there are a couple of lines i must have missed first time around (through late night dozy reading) which hint at MASSIVE things i thought, where John Grammaticus is saying on page 83 (be warned i don't know how to do spoilers so) SPOILER ALERT!!! "His mind saw into everything it made him think about the thing he tried to never think about: that day long ago, meeting the emperor, shaking his hand, tasting the power, and seeing, behind the glamour of that handsome, noble, healthy face, seeing.......just for a nanosecond. Seeing....." . I mean how mind blowing is that?!? seeing what?? is D-Abz saying the Emperor is actuallly the PRIMORDIAL ANNIHALATOR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I mean how mind blowing is that?!? seeing what?? is D-Abz saying the Emperor is actuallly the PRIMORDIAL ANNIHALATOR? I don't think that's what he was saying. More that to see into the mind of what is essentially a god must be pretty mind-blowing in itself. I think he also commented on the fact that the Emperor was "a bloodthirsty bastard" which would probably have added to the sensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 thats the other bit in legion which i would have alluded to if i had remembered it! John Grammaticus is under the impression that The emperor is a right royal wrong 'un, why is this if we are generally meant to think he is a thoroughly decent chap and force of good? On a side issue why didn't Peto Soneka fall under John's hypnotism power? did he also have a psionic scrambler like Uxor rukshana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 thats the other bit in legion which i would have alluded to if i had remembered it! John Grammaticus is under the impression that The emperor is a right royal wrong 'un, why is this if we are generally meant to think he is a thoroughly decent chap and force of good? Throughout the HH books the Emperor has come across not so much as a force of good - more just a force! Let's recap: Religion - kill!!! Aliens - kill!!! Anyone who disagrees with him - kill!!! The Emperor clearly has a plan and that may or may not be for the overall good of humanity(I tend to think it is) but he is utterly ruthless when it comes to bringing that plan to fruition. Nothing and nobody will be allowed to interfere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midgard Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I took the passage in "Legion" to refer to the Emperor's appearance being an extremely powerful psychic illusion; under that glamour, the real Emperor is something completely different. It's been a while since I have read "Legion", but I recall one interpretation in Internet discussions of the time being that the Emperor was essentially a walking corpse animated solely through his psychic powers and presenting an impenetrable psychic facade to everyone else. Of course, there are problems with that - first, at least some of the Primarchs would have been able to see past that glamour, especially someone like Magnus, whose psychic powers were almost certainly greater than those of Grammaticus. None of the Primarchs act as if they see anything but the facade. Second, it has the potential of changing the picture of what happens to the Emperor at the end of the Heresy - if he was a ruined corpse all along, animated by his psychic powers, what if he simply dropped the psychic glamour after the duel with Horus? What if it was all planned for? The evidence does not strongly support the psychic glamour/living corpse theory, but it does provide some interesting food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Religion - kill!!! Aliens - kill!!! Anyone who disagrees with him - kill!!! The Emperor clearly has a plan and that may or may not be for the overall good of humanity(I tend to think it is) but he is utterly ruthless when it comes to bringing that plan to fruition. Nothing and nobody will be allowed to interfere. But that sounds like the ideology of National Socialism and look what (quite rightly) happened to them with their "i know best" outlook! i thought he was driven by the force of reason, fact and ultimate truth and justice and was on a crusade to reunite and save humanity, 'in a good way'. I now have my doubts about him, unless....you're name isn't erebus is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 I took the passage in "Legion" to refer to the Emperor's appearance being an extremely powerful psychic illusion; under that glamour, the real Emperor is something completely different. It's been a while since I have read "Legion", but I recall one interpretation in Internet discussions of the time being that the Emperor was essentially a walking corpse animated solely through his psychic powers and presenting an impenetrable psychic facade to everyone else. Of course, there are problems with that - first, at least some of the Primarchs would have been able to see past that glamour, especially someone like Magnus, whose psychic powers were almost certainly greater than those of Grammaticus. None of the Primarchs act as if they see anything but the facade. Second, it has the potential of changing the picture of what happens to the Emperor at the end of the Heresy - if he was a ruined corpse all along, animated by his psychic powers, what if he simply dropped the psychic glamour after the duel with Horus? What if it was all planned for? The evidence does not strongly support the psychic glamour/living corpse theory, but it does provide some interesting food for thought. Doesn't Rogal dorn bring him back to inter him in the Golden throne so he would have noticed the wreck he had become/already was then? i have always presumed cadaver status was assumed over a 1000 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midgard Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Doesn't Rogal dorn bring him back to inter him in the Golden throne so he would have noticed the wreck he had become/already was then? i have always presumed cadaver status was assumed over a 1000 years As I mentioned earlier, there is not much definite proof for the above theory, but it can be reasoned that if the Emperor is sufficiently psychically powerful, he could imitate the ravaged/wounded appearance just as easily as he could a normal, healthy one. So Dorn sees what the Emperor intended him to see - and as the time went on, the Emperor drops all pretense of glamour. Interestingly enough, this implies that he can more or less get up and walk from the Golden Throne at any time, if his "injuries" are simply his natural state - and the current M41/42 situation is really a Xanathos gambit by the Big E (and the grimdark hopelessness of the 41st/42nd Millennium is not despite the Emperor's work, but directly because of it). Of course, the proof for it is pretty limited and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, even more so than many things in the 40K-verse, so I doubt it represents the actual state of things as per GW. Still an interesting possibility, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Interestingly enough, this implies that he can more or less get up and walk from the Golden Throne at any time, if his "injuries" are simply his natural state - and the current M41/42 situation is really a Xanathos gambit by the Big E what is a "xanathos gambit" please? i have not heard that term before and i plan on using it in conversations henceforth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethrion Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Never is the answer to that question. What with all the other 40K books out there I've had plenty to read between HH books. Although with that said I am on the last one I have at the moment - Savage Scars. But after that I have plenty of other books waiting so I'm not worried about needing to start re-reading. I might actually get to start reading 'The Isles' which has been on my shelf for ages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midgard Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 what is a "xanathos gambit" please? i have not heard that term before and i plan on using it in conversations henceforth! As per TV Tropes: A Xanatos Gambit is a plan whose multiple possible outcomes all benefit its creator. It's a win-win situation for whoever plots it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brannick Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 @ Munkrunky - same as you. Have recently started re-reading all of the books; currently mid way through The First Heretic. I generally complete 1 a week - the big gaps are a killer for me too now that I have fully caught up with the series. Oh woah is us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Ive read The First Heretic 3 times, but have been working through the Soul Hunter/Blood Reaver books again to the point where I am pricing out a Night Lords army... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumah Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I've read the first three books three times a piece. Flight of the Eisenstein, Prospero Burns and Legion twice, and all the others once. I actually just started Legion again for the third time; I has me an Alpha Legion fever, and the only prescription...is more Abnett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sponsra Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I´m reading them all for the second time now. I almost done with Fulgrim. They´re way better this time around, and I´m getting curious to see if I even might appreciate Decent of angels and battle for the abyss (my two least favorites the first time around) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 i am a bit wary of the Dark angels tangent and out of them all particularly Battle of the Abyss myself although through revisiting does new stuff come to light? in terms of what seemed nonsensical or daft at the time in retrospect gives an AHA! moment (not alan partridge) I think Fallen angels is really pretty good and does bolster descent to a certain extent. However the Cypher revelations started to make my brain hurt as i was new to dark angel lore at the time, it made me purchase angels of darkness to catch up on the murky (possibly) world of the dark angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 i am a bit wary of the Dark angels tangent and out of them all particularly Battle of the Abyss myself although through revisiting does new stuff come to light? in terms of what seemed nonsensical or daft at the time in retrospect gives an AHA! moment (not alan partridge) I think Fallen angels is really pretty good and does bolster descent to a certain extent. However the Cypher revelations started to make my brain hurt as i was new to dark angel lore at the time, it made me purchase angels of darkness to catch up on the murky (possibly) world of the dark angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brannick Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The majority of avid Horus Heresy followers tend to be none too fond of Battle for the Abyss as it isn't a million miles away from any fan-fiction you can read across the net. It's a good piece of fiction, but from 'proper' authors you really want a bit more than the collective A-Team taking on all-comers. My thoughts are again the exact same as yours, Munky. I really believe that Fallen Angels bolstered Descent of Angels and made it a better book, which is why I think Mike Lee should receive more kudos and I hope he gets another HH novel soon. It is of course assumption, but I am not entirely convinced that another author could have worked with the heavy background required for Descent of Angels and delivered a more envigorating book, then again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Munkrunky Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 Mike lee is indeed very well accomplished. i loved how he played with the readers sympathies for Luther throughout Fallen angels. But Isn't he an amalgam of two authors? or is that Lee lightner? the latter space wolf saga writer who took over Bill kings work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olis Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Although I have every book and, yes, the delay between each book can be a little much considering there are multiple authors involved*, I must say I have yet to reread any of them. I have other literary interests (though still sci-fi) that I usually have a small 'to read' stack awaiting me whenever I finish a book. However, I normally have more than one book on the go anyway. :P * I do realise not eveything happens as fast as we'd like and authors usually have more than just writing a single novel on their minds/diaries, so whatever impulsive and impatient notion we may have about how long we must wait, I think we should just be thankul we've had such a cracking series so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icee77 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 BAH! The Outcast Dead will have nothing on Deliverance Lost! The first Raven Guard centered book (If you don't count Hunt For Voldorius) AND! it will be written by Gav Thorpe, the guy who wrote Angels Of Darkness. I read Prospero Burns and Thousand Sons more times than I can count. In my opinion, those books were the most controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Shady Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Re-reading Fallen Angels but I've re-read the following; Galaxy In Flames The Flight of the Eisenstein Fulgrim Legion A Thousand Sons The First Heretic Prospero Burns Think I've read Fulgrim at least 5 times because it's so enthralling. Interested more into The Outcast Dead after reading the snippet BL gave. Didn't look much from the cover but you know what they say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.