Emperors Gift Review

[Valerian]

Thanks, Kurgan. Long day at work and I wasn't able to respond. I did a Grey Knight "history lesson" a while back in this thread.

 

Valerian

[Chengar Qordath]

Yeesh, I have to take back what I said earlier about a Grey Knight's ability. No more sticking to that stance. Reading Gree's comments, a Grand Master full of pride does seem very uncharacteristic from the outset and and doesn't really sit well with me. Even if it's only a possibility. It seems like ADB is really going out his way to break the old myths. Certainly had me fooled into thinking we'd be reading about them in a positive light in this book...

To be fair, going off his comments here A D-B got more or less forced into some of those changes by all the new fluff introduced in the GK Codex. Suddenly having to go from writing the classic Grey Knights to the "murder fellow imperial soldier for daemonic power" Grey Knights of the Ward-dex probably threw off some of what he had planned.

[Valerian]

To be fair, going off his comments here A D-B got more or less forced into some of those changes by all the new fluff introduced in the GK Codex. Suddenly having to go from writing the classic Grey Knights to the "murder fellow imperial soldier for daemonic power" Grey Knights of the Ward-dex probably threw off some of what he had planned.

 

The thing about it that torks me off about it, is that he was going to name one of the Grey Knights, perhaps the protagonist, Valerian, and he had to change it when Inquisitor Valeria popped up out of nowhere in the new codex, too.

 

V

[A D-B]

Yeesh, I have to take back what I said earlier about a Grey Knight's ability. No more sticking to that stance. Reading Gree's comments, a Grand Master full of pride does seem very uncharacteristic from the outset and and doesn't really sit well with me. Even if it's only a possibility. It seems like ADB is really going out his way to break the old myths. Certainly had me fooled into thinking we'd be reading about them in a positive light in this book...

 

That doesn't really add up, in all honesty. A minor character that the protagonist doesn't like much, with a few pages of screentime, is hardly "fooling you into thinking you'd be reading about them in a positive light". It's a massive misunderstanding to assume there's some great flaw in the Chapter's presentation.

 

Especially when:

 

1. Gree's comments still lack context, obviously. They're a couple of hundred (at most) words about a one hundred and five thousand word novel. This isn't even that major an event in the book.

2. He's not some towering, vainglorious fool addled by pride. He's proud. That's literally it. He's a knight. That's all.

3. Hyperion's view of the character in question is flawed by his own personal investment and the fact he barely knows the guy.

4. It even notes later in the book by another character that the Grey Knight in question wasn't doing X or Y for pride after all, and he specifically tried other options first.

 

So you're really jumping the gun, here.

 

As I said in the other thread:

 

Actually, a lot of that is perspective. You could just as easily argue that because they simply can't be corrupted, they can show any character traits they like with impunity. The same way they can wield daemon weapons (or whatever else). Don't mistake your perspective for an absolute truth. I see absolutely no issue at all with them having various personalities and less-desirable character traits. (I'm not saying mine do; I'm pretty sure they don't, and a lot of this is trying to render a nuanced perspective into absolutes). Mind-scrubbing, indoctrination, and everything else will work wonders, but a core of humanity beneath the inhumanity will always exist - especially among soldiers who see things that they see, and spend their lives in a monastic order devoted to recording its deeds and its members' personal honour rolls. They're knights. It's not like he was some towering, staggering monstrosity lost in pride. He was proud. That's pretty much it. It's only negative ambition through Hyperion's inexperienced, emotional eyes. It's not an objective flaw. He doesn't make Malchadiel kneel because he's a douche. He makes him kneel because that's the tradition, and traditions are to be respected, obeyed and adhered to. But to Hyperion? It's heartbreaking, because of his personal investment.

 

I don't even see him as dishonourable. He strikes "dishonourably" because the men in power ordered him to, and he's a living weapon made to obey them. It's all about who holds the reins of power, and how different Grey Knights react to it. It's a conflict of honour, between the two Chapters. One is raised believing honour is in being stalwart and obeying in the face of unbelievable darkness. The other is raised believing honour is in doing the right thing, from a perspective of human morality.

 

A lot of this comes down to what the Emperor's Gift actually is, which is discussed right at the end. That's the point. It's not as clear-cut as we all thought before the new codex.

 

Now imagine you were halfway through a novel when all this new lore dropped, and had to restart from scratch.

 

You're dealing in a lot of absolutes, though. This is a difficult and nuanced topic, based around lore that recently changed, and is still hugely vague anyway, with a great many potential contradictions. No one can say "This is what the Grey Knights are" because no one really knows, now. That's why Hyperion has that discussion about what the Emperor's Gift is. Even I avoided saying anything objective, because the vagueness is pretty in-built into the faction itself.

 

On p283 and 284, it even has the inquisitor candidly saying Joros takes the blame for the inquisitor's own orders and actions. Hyperion didn't know it when he first saw Joros' actions, but he learns later that maybe the Grand Master wasn't motivated by pride after all. Joros is revealed to have even counselled everything except really trying to screw over a First Founding Chapter. So like I said, it's really not even that clean cut. Not even in terms of needing to extrapolate or assume; as this is right there in the book.

 

The thing about it that torks me off about it, is that he was going to name one of the Grey Knights, perhaps the protagonist, Valerian, and he had to change it when Inquisitor Valeria popped up out of nowhere in the new codex, too.

 

Totally true. Hyperion was Valerian until the codex dropped.

[Valerian]

WAAAARDDD!!!!!!

[*Furyou Miko]

There there. *pats Val on the head*.

 

I have to say, it is nice to have the author available for comment so freely. Gods bless the internet. ^^

[Oiad]

That doesn't really add up, in all honesty. A minor character that the protagonist doesn't like much, with a few pages of screentime, is hardly "fooling you into thinking you'd be reading about them in a positive light". It's a massive misunderstanding to assume there's some great flaw in the Chapter's presentation.

Thanks for your explanations and putting the criticisms that are flooding these boards into some perspective.

 

To be fair, going off his comments here A D-B got more or less forced into some of those changes by all the new fluff introduced in the GK Codex. Suddenly having to go from writing the classic Grey Knights to the "murder fellow imperial soldier for daemonic power" Grey Knights of the Ward-dex probably threw off some of what he had planned.

Cheers for the heads up. So the newer approach to the Grey Knights is one that is going to be sticking around for a while. Those older fans who fell for the 3E take on the chapter had better learn to accept all or move on, eh?

[Brother Captain Kezef]

Ok, just finished the book, couldn't put the bleeding thing down.

 

Have to say ADB has outdone himself, I shan't spoil things but will make a few observations.

 

1) Prideful captain

 

This is in no way accurate. The character in question is described as "ambitious" an that's how he comes across. His actions seem motivated around what's best for the Grey Knights and duty rather than perosnal pride. Like all the knights he is moraly against the purging of the Armageddon guardsmen but knows it is his duty and does what is required, knowing WHY it is required.

 

2) Grey Knighst are in a bad light

 

Nope, the Grey Knights are revealed for who and what they truly are, extremely pragmatic soldiers fighting a hidden war against an enemy that can not be revealed. They don't kill millions for fun or out of blind devotion to duty, they kill millions in the full and certain knowledge that they do so to save billions. What they do, the actions they take, they do so unwillingly but out of pragmatism. In a way they are as grey as their names, they are not the good guys but they are not the bad guys either.

 

3) Fenrisian inquisitor is blinded by emotion.

 

Nope, she is Fenrisian, her emotions are a vital and important aspect of who and what she is. Sure she makes a bad call here or there but her mind is on the ball. She has a different way of doing things and if this book says anything about the Inquisition, it highlights how each and every Inquisitor is an individual wrking in their own seperate ways to achieve the same goal.

 

 

This novel is an awesome book, the space battle scenes alone are amazingly well done and get across the realities of fighting in space with little touches such as highlighting the lack of sound and a little description of how an explosion in zero G without an atmosphere is visualised.

 

The Wolves are in real danger of stealing the limelight however, they are wonderfully written and capture the contrast between how they are viewed and how they truly are. Grimnar is awesome and a well known wolf makes an appearence that steals the show (shan't ruin it for others).

 

Space marines are often depicted as too human or too inhuman, in this book ADB has found the balance. Interactions between Hyperion nd the Inquisitor's retinue really show the emotional difference between an astartes and a Human but, more importantly, highlight where they are the same.

 

One thing I liked was ADB's interpretation of roles within the chapter. The main Character is part of an Interceptor squad, yet for the encounter with Angron they are ordered into "their" terminator armour. He makes the suggestion that every Grey Knight is a Terminator, however some choose other roles instead, yet always have the fall-back option of Terminator plate. The other squad types are personal choice rather than assighned roles.

 

Too often the Inquistors in black libarary books are one dimensional villains or thrown in to justify a plot twist. The two main Inquisitors in Emperor's gift are fleshed out, given life and motivation, this is something I liked. The antagonist Inquisitor was a good character seeming one dimensional at first but as the book progressed his motivations, character flaws and strengths where revealed and you could understand him a bit more.

 

A very good book and well written.

[A D-B]

Thanks for your explanations and putting the criticisms that are flooding these boards into some perspective.

 

Dude, 3 or 4 guys, most of whom haven't read the book, is hardly flooding. Everyone who's read it has said they love it.

 

Cheers for the heads up. So the newer approach to the Grey Knights is one that is going to be sticking around for a while. Those older fans who fell for the 3E take on the chapter had better learn to accept all or move on, eh?

 

Not really. I think it's worth bearing in mind that it's taken out of context, and the changes are extremely minor. We're talking about a couple of sentences, largely overblown or misunderstood, in a 320-page novel. Don't get me wrong, any fandom will always fixate on minor points and blow them out of proportion, but this is an example of the change being pretty minor, and a year old now, anyway - let alone barely being mentioned in the novel, or simply misunderstood in the first place.

[Oiad]

Thanks for your explanations and putting the criticisms that are flooding these boards into some perspective.

Dude, 3 or 4 guys, most of whom haven't read the book, is hardly flooding. Everyone who's read it has said they love it.

Hehe, dude, all it sometimes takes is 3 or 4 guys to make a flood. Vocal minorities, etc. But seriously I'm not exaggerating on purpose. I was just happy for someone to put those worries to rest. So give a guy a break already. :D

 

Not really. I think it's worth bearing in mind that it's taken out of context, and the changes are extremely minor. We're talking about a couple of sentences, largely overblown or misunderstood, in a 320-page novel. Don't get me wrong, any fandom will always fixate on minor points and blow them out of proportion, but this is an example of the change being pretty minor, and a year old now, anyway - let alone barely being mentioned in the novel, or simply misunderstood in the first place.

Sure, it may be minor from other perspectives, but we are fans on a dedicated forum and for many fans it did mark quite a difference. You've even noted once that the GKs took an 'overall weakening' and that the changes were enough that you had to go back and revise parts of your novel. So it has had some notable effect and it's not a stretch to say there's been enough change or new info to keep the online community talking about it a year on.

[Marmande]

Hey there ADB, loved the book, etc. I just had three questions:

 

1 - Does this novel preclude any sort of Space Marine Battles-esque novel about the First War, in your opinion? I get the impression that there's a reason we didn't hear much about Ulrik in the book (something the Space Wolf subforum is currently in a tizzy about if you want to give that a looksie) or anything from the Wolves' perspective about the initial stages of the war beyond Grimnar's description of it.

 

2 - At one point in the novel, as the Inquisition is methodically killing anyone and anyplace even tangentially related to Armageddon, Hyperion remarks that it is the Wolves' stubbornness that is leading to all these deaths. While I got the obvious message, I got the impression he was also trying to shift the blame for what was being done in the name of pragmatism, that the Inquisition's stubbornness was also to blame here. Was I reading too deeply?

 

3 - Perhaps somewhat related to question one, but will you ever write a Space Wolf book now? :)

[the jeske]

At one point in the novel, as the Inquisition is methodically killing anyone and anyplace even tangentially related to Armageddon, Hyperion remarks that it is the Wolves' stubbornness that is leading to all these deaths. While I got the obvious message, I got the impression he was also trying to shift the blame for what was being done in the name of pragmatism, that the Inquisition's stubbornness was also to blame here. Was I reading too deeply?

think about it this way . its WWII and your soviet troops seen that the west isnt as bad as they were told for the last 20+years. now you cant let those troops go back to Russia , that would be too dangerouse . If you kill them off on the spot , then there is fewer people to kill later[just the troopers who were executing the main force] . If you try to do the same at home , then you have to kill all the dudes working for the rail , civil goverment and party member that may have had contacts with the troops coming from the west etc. Another option would be to transport them as fast as possible to syberia and let them die off there [no stoping . so some would die durning transport another good thing] . But if someone [lets say Zhukov ] was opposing you there it would be a huge problem both from a logistic and internal party power point of view.

 

The SW vs INQ situation is very much the same . They are forcing the inq to kill more dudes . All the troop transporters that were escorted by the SW , but didnt fly to fenris would be eliminated .Only it would take more resources . listening posts would have to be killed off, refuel/reamrm stations they got in to contact too. Any ship that had contact with the troopers , would have to be eliminated too. The way SW acted only costed the imperium more resources more times and gave more chance for someone tainted to escape.

[ANCIENT FALOR]

Awesome book. I read it all in a day and a half. Definately one of the better BL books. Absolutely enjoyed the Red Hunters mention in there. I was a little confused when Hyperion encountered the Red Hunters fleet. Does the chapter go above the numbers of the codex, for a chapter? I got that they are way above the 1000 mark.

 

Would they be a chapter ADB would explore in the future? . again i loved the story.

[Crimson Hawk]

These comparisons can get a bit tiresome. The whole "a company of Grey Knights is better thana company of Salamanders against enemy X"

 

Simply because it doesn't happen that way.

 

There are (as of the new codex) 8 Brotherhoods of Grey Knights. A Brotherhood is roughly the size of an astartes company, maybe a bit bigger as they seem closer to Space Wolf great companies than codex ones.

 

These guys are highly specialised and spread out across the entire Imperium hunting Daemonic threats and ONLY Daemonic threats. They will ignore calls to help in other warzones that do not involve a Daemonic threat and that's their remit.

 

The numbers of active Pyskers in ANY Astartes chapter is limited to a handful, perhaps no more than a dozen in some cases. EVERY single Grey Knight is not only a psyker but a combat trained psyker. There is nothing else in the Imperium like the Grey Knights, but they exist for on purpose and one purpose alone.

 

Sure, the Grey Knights would tear into anything thet gets in their way, but their objective would be solely to get through whatever nuisance is blocking them from achieving their anti-daemon objective. They are too rare, oo specialised to be wasted fighting anything else.

I really do hate to say this but...

Though the Grey Knights are principally concerned with the daemonic menace, they have fought countless battles against the alien, the mutant and the heretic

p10 of the codex

[Valtonis]

Just finished reading it and it is really good.

it is about a squad that was involved in the First War of Armageddon.

what they were doing before, the climax of the war and the aftermath.

 

it really shows how despicable some people can be just to have more power.

 

 

Logan Grimnar was awesome in it so was Bjorn Fell-handed's appearance

 

 

the climatic battle was really awesome, one of the best battle scenes i have read in a WH40K novel

[Lonewolf86]

Just finished TEG and I must say like many on here I was very impressed. I think this might be ADB's best book that I've read. I certainly think he is improving as an author and I think narrating a story in the first person really suits him. Characters are developed well and have real depth which is definite feature of his novels. What strikes me most is the author's ability to convey what happened without always needing to resort to great detail nad page after page of blow by blow accounts. I notice that often he will focus on smaller aspects of a battle and explain the rest in larger, sweeping strokes which allows the reader to use their imagination to fill in the gaps. Other authors often resort to lengthy descriptions of battles which can sometimes merge into one hundred thousand words of 'bolter porn'. Not always a bad thing but I think ADB does a very good job of picking his showpieces and focuses on the narration between them which I think is a big reason for the rightful acclaim his novels are receiving.

 

One thing that did catch my eye and I wonder if someone could clear this up:

 

 

When Hyperion is talking with Kysnaros above Fenris and the inquisitor is explaining his actions he states he doesn't want another Badab war or words to that effect.

Was there more than one Badab war? I understood that the Badab war happened some five hundred years after the First War For Armageddon? What have I missed?

[Valerian]

Just finished TEG and I must say like many on here I was very impressed. I think this might be ADB's best book that I've read. I certainly think he is improving as an author and I think narrating a story in the first person really suits him. Characters are developed well and have real depth which is definite feature of his novels. What strikes me most is the author's ability to convey what happened without always needing to resort to great detail nad page after page of blow by blow accounts. I notice that often he will focus on smaller aspects of a battle and explain the rest in larger, sweeping strokes which allows the reader to use their imagination to fill in the gaps. Other authors often resort to lengthy descriptions of battles which can sometimes merge into one hundred thousand words of 'bolter porn'. Not always a bad thing but I think ADB does a very good job of picking his showpieces and focuses on the narration between them which I think is a big reason for the rightful acclaim his novels are receiving.

 

One thing that did catch my eye and I wonder if someone could clear this up:

 

 

When Hyperion is talking with Kysnaros above Fenris and the inquisitor is explaining his actions he states he doesn't want another Badab war or words to that effect.

Was there more than one Badab war? I understood that the Badab war happened some five hundred years after the First War For Armageddon? What have I missed?

 

Apparently, you missed post number 14 in this thread.

 

V

[nurglez]

Just finished this today, and I really enjoyed it. Really believable characters, great combat and I really loved the space wolves. (and seeing my name in print is always fun, I have the same name as the first grandmaster of the grey knights :cuss ).

[Lonewolf86]

Just finished TEG and I must say like many on here I was very impressed. I think this might be ADB's best book that I've read. I certainly think he is improving as an author and I think narrating a story in the first person really suits him. Characters are developed well and have real depth which is definite feature of his novels. What strikes me most is the author's ability to convey what happened without always needing to resort to great detail nad page after page of blow by blow accounts. I notice that often he will focus on smaller aspects of a battle and explain the rest in larger, sweeping strokes which allows the reader to use their imagination to fill in the gaps. Other authors often resort to lengthy descriptions of battles which can sometimes merge into one hundred thousand words of 'bolter porn'. Not always a bad thing but I think ADB does a very good job of picking his showpieces and focuses on the narration between them which I think is a big reason for the rightful acclaim his novels are receiving.

 

One thing that did catch my eye and I wonder if someone could clear this up:

 

 

When Hyperion is talking with Kysnaros above Fenris and the inquisitor is explaining his actions he states he doesn't want another Badab war or words to that effect.

Was there more than one Badab war? I understood that the Badab war happened some five hundred years after the First War For Armageddon? What have I missed?

 

Apparently, you missed post number 14 in this thread.

 

V

 

Ta muchly!

[ShadowMaster]

Just an absolutely amazing read, best 40K book yet. Not joking, this actually got so good to the point of being ridiculous. I am not trolling here.

 

Some of the moments when I got out of control follows below in spoilers:

 

 

When Captain Taremar called out - "Angron, Justice Comes. Turn Beast and Face Me" I randomly went int to a trance and said golly over and over again for like 20 seconds while breathing heavily.

 

 

 

When Logan Grimnar slaughters Grandmaster Joro I was completely and utterly stunned, I had had to put the book away and just go over what just had happened

 

 

 

When Bjorn the Fell-handed appeared and everyone was in awe I literally didn't know what to do, I actually started to jump around and giggle. Thank you ADB...

 

[Jonny Wolf]

Thanks for your explanations and putting the criticisms that are flooding these boards into some perspective.

 

Dude, 3 or 4 guys, most of whom haven't read the book, is hardly flooding. Everyone who's read it has said they love it.

 

 

Brother,

I finished your novel yesterday and I can sincerely say that it's probably one of, if not the best 40k Novel I've read. I thought it was amazing!

Yes I'm a Son of Russ, but I found the whole book simply stunning. Well done. Wel done, indeed.

[Azarias]

I just finished the book after picking it up earlier this afternoon. And I couldn't stop reading it, from start to finish, even though I should really be working on my master's thesis right now. But here goes.

 

The only reason I'm not saying The Emperor's Gift is the best book the Black Library has ever published is because I haven't read every BL book. But I can say that it is a good book. In thinking about it, I ended up comparing it to (enter pretentious academic me) Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov. Now, I recognize the comparison's bewildering, but bear with me. There's a great deal of cultural mystique about Lolita, and even moral condemnation, but what saves the work is the last arc, where the protagonist comes to terms with the choice he made. There's no sense of moral redemption - he doesn't make anything better by realizing that he's been a monster. Rather, it's that moment of recognition, when he realized that he had a choice that makes the book. Much of the protagonist's elaborate diction earlier had attempted to create the illusion that he had no choice, that he was too caught up in some numinous love, or whatever cliché you want. But when his style is dispelled and he comes to that moment of realization, that moment is the emotional and thematic core of the novel. You get something similar in Aristotle's ideas of Greek Tragedy, where he ties the notion of anagnorisis (recognition) to Tragedy. The crux around which all the drama is centered is that moment when you understand your choices - or even that you had made a choice in the first place. Humbert's moment of anagnorisis in Lolita is what transforms it into a highly ethical work, despite its detractors' claims. Creon's in Antigone stops him from being a villain, and hence makes the dialectic between the family and the state in that play so compelling.

 

What does this have to do with The Emperor's Gift? Everything. Dembski-Bowden has shown, through the book's title and through that absolutely pivotal scene between Hyperion and Kysnaros that the idea of choice is central to the novel. Let's look at the work from a structural point of view: how much attention is given to Armageddon? By the time that's over, there's still over a third of the novel to go. From a dramatic point of view, that's not where you put your climax; for when is the Death Star destroyed in Star Wars? About five minutes from the end. Unless you're doing something clever, you put the climax near the end, followed by a bit of denoument (there are clever exceptions like "The Tell-Tale Heart," but let's no complicate things). No, the real climax to the story comes with the little civil war, where you have two very different concepts of morality juxtaposed against one another: the Inquisition represents the utilitarian good that keeps the Imperium running, whereas the Space Wolves represent a more relatable moral imperative. Remember, when the war on Armageddon is done, both choices are presented. The Wolves ask how can the sacrifices made in a war against an obvious antagonist can possibly be justified if everything that was fought for was going to be liquidated regardless of the outcome. The Inquisition, knowing the risks involved, and the hyperbolic number of lives at stake, present a case where the lesser evil is the better choice. And, remember, Hyperion agrees with the latter - at least, at the beginning.

 

Then the issue of choice comes in. This is the part I find really fascinating about the book. DB didn't merely let this fruitful moment of conflict pass in the name of further cementing the grimdark nature of the WH40K universe. Rather, he depicts a conflict where the Inquisition loses the moral imperative because it chooses to engage in an extreme form of its utilitarian logic. Again and again, they choose to escalate the conflict, as Grimnar is so fond of pointing out. Yet none of the characters are depicted as villains for their choices. Even the Lord Inquisitor has his rather humanizing moment, where his reasons are given. And this moment is what really ties the book together, as the Grey Knights are depicted as being so distant from regular humanity that they find many of the mundane details of life (humor, sex, etc...) puzzling. Indeed, some of the best moments in this book come from the presentation of those gaps, both in terms of humor and drama. Yet they are still bound by basic, moral choices:

 

 

 

Kysnaros nodded. ‘And do you have the answer? Hyperion, what is the Emperor’s Gift? A license to do as you

please, safeguarded against the evils that wrack our species? Or is it a sacred charge, a responsibility you have to live

up to, fighting every second to remain purer than the species you’re sworn to defend?’

‘I don’t know. None of us know.’

He was still meeting my eyes. ‘But what do you believe?’

What did I believe? Did I even wish to share it with an outsider? Annika had asked me it herself, on countless

occasions. Each time I’d changed the subject, or simply walked away.

‘I believe each of us makes that choice ourselves.’

 

 

The explicit rationale behind their immunity is never disclosed. Fine. It's more interesting this way, because whatever the reason used to explain each Knight's immunity, it all comes down to why they fight. Though they are as far above Astartes as Astartes are above mortals, all three groups are unified by their ability to make choices - specifically, moral choices. To fall or not to fall.

 

The reason I enjoyed this book so much, and the reason I think it's so good is that DB doesn't drop the point in there like, say, the latest Conan film did a question about free will (that is, without subtlety, context, or any sense of relation to the movie's plot and ideas). No. The story's real conflict is wholly concerned with the notion of choice. And that sense of design and of, well, art, is what makes this (oh I'll say it) the best book the BL has published, and a pretty good book in general.

 

...And, being a Chaos enthusiast, I'll show myself out.

[skarn]

The reason I enjoyed this book so much, and the reason I think it's so good is that DB doesn't drop the point in there like, say, the latest Conan film did a question about free will (that is, without subtlety, context, or any sense of relation to the movie's plot and ideas).

What part of Conan was that? Are you talking about this monologue?

Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

[Azarias]

That's the one.

[skarn]

Fair enough. I remember really liking that part because it was one of the few Howard-isms in the film.