Lack of personality?

[Ranwulf]

I just looked over a post (not in B&C) about the Horus Heresy books. Some of the posters kept saying how the characters of the series lack personality. First of all, I think they were being spiteful, but they could have a point that they were not explaining well.

 

My personal opinion about this is that the characters do seem to have some degree of personality, but to some they might not be "new", nothing game changing or worth of much noticed; or maybe they lack some degree of depth, which I don't exactly know how it could be.  

 

Karkasy is quite a man of vice, but always honest. Sindermann a man whose belief in the "truth" and knowledge was so staunch that when he saw the creature in the mountains he broke himself. Eidolon is arrogant, and so forth. The character they were talking about this lack of personality was Euphrati Keeler, who we don't see in great extent, but at first she seems quite bold, perhaps this was not translated well because a action taker character is usually expected, we can also see she develops a devotion to deal with what she saw. 

 

I want to ask if you agree with such statement, or if you have a different opinion about it.

 

Ran

[Mazer Rackham]

Being honest Euphrati Keeler wasn't somebody I really cared about, she just didn't float my boat at all - I found her annoying and if it wasn't for the unhealthy amounts of plot armour, would have been overjoyed to read a bolter round had fragged her.

 

Some characters were written well, but on the whole I think there are too many.  During Know no Fear I completely forgot who was who, doing what, where and why and I stopped caring.

 

I will say that I found, with a few notable exceptions, the Horus Heresy series to be, well, disappointing.  I don't think it's a lack of new, there's a fair whack of it - I just think it's a case of it's...boring.

 

Cynically, I think it's boring because they're trying to spin it out to make money, so to me, it's not going anywhere - even though we all know where it is going end up.  It's like the TV show Lost.  You spin it out and out, people just go "meh, got better things to do."

 

Just my pennies.

[[TA]Typher]

Some are well written and ooze personality. Sevatar and Khârn are examples of this. The Night Naughter is still lackluster and one tracked, but after reading the Prince of crows I am seriously wanting a NL army. Sevatar was that well written. I used to think Pertarabo was dull and boring, but after Angels Exterminatus I now find him very interesting. He legion is still boring, but his motivations and personality are very Intriguing. There are more that have been extremely well done. It's so nice to read a book from a marines point of view in which he's not a two syllable speaking war robot.

 

There have been some stinkers in the HH series though.

 

Deliverance lost... I pretty much didn't care about anyone in the book. It's hard to get invested in a one sided story. It was like reading a story from a gretchin's point of view about a battle the Orks were not only beaten, but insulted and peed on. The book reminded me of something I would have written at the age of 14. My team wins, without so much as a struggle or loss of life and the other guys all die horribly in a fire without so much as a shining moment to show they were involved at all.

 

Look at the depictions of Corax in that book. Flat, dull and without life. The first 40 pages show him to be a genius when he is navigating the lab-maze, but then on Deliverance someone removes his brain and he sits and drools in the corner for the rest of the book. Now compare that to Pert in Angels Exterminatus, or to Russ in Prospero Burns (amazing BTW), or Angron and Logar in Betrayer. the way those last two played off each other, the palpable tension of emotions between them was amazing. looking at these examples the stark difference in what makes a primarch a primarch becomes clear. Who wants to read about a sub-par primarch? I don't.

 

I haven't read the First Heretic but I hear Corax comes off better in it. That's good, but it doesn't help Deliverance Lost, which has been one of the worst HH books I've read. There are other examples, but this one was the clearest to explain. Either don't use the primarchs in your story, write them better and more believable or make a point to excuse them from the story so I'm not disappointed in them. No one wants to read a lackluster one-sided story about their favorite legion. The Book Fulgrim was another example of this. Was there any Iron Hands Characters in that book that had a personality? was there any Iron Hands that actually lived through that book? the answer is a resounding 'No' to both of those questions.

 

Look at Fabius in Angels Eterminatus he's crazy and scary. As much as I hate the guy it's hard not to appreciate the fact that he is so well written he gives you the creeps. Now compare him to pretty much everyone in Decent of Angels. Boring and flat. I read that book and wondered if these characters ever smile or joke with each other. Compare those DA to the DA in Ravenwing and you'll see a vast difference.

 

In General books that have 15 characters with similarly difficult names are much harder to get involved with the characters. I hate reading 2 or 3 pages only to realize I've confused characters and now I have to do the mental math to correct the story in my head.

 

Having great characters really depends on the writer, the writing style and how much they've brainstormed the plot lines of the book I would say. Some of the writers I love have been really disappointing me recently. Thankfully some of the new ones haven't :)

[GhostMalone]

Look I'm not having a go or anything, but if you haven't read all the books and delved deeper into the background I don't think it's right to criticise, alot can be missed the first time you read one of the HH books, I myself have read them all a minimum of two times, a lot of the characters like Euphrati keeler are going to play a much bigger part in the heresy, it's just even after over twenty books looking at everything from the legions to the imperial palace has to be covered and we are barely scratching the top. I just think if we wait the characters will develope even further. I personally hated garro and flight of the Eisenstein but after listening to all the audio dramas and allowing the character to develope and deepen with character has changed that, so just give it time.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

If you want to your head into the NLs then start with A D-B's trilogy. Although set in the run up to the 13th Crusade, the characters are predominantly HH-era and provide lots of background.

[Kol Saresk]

I don't think I'd call them HH-era. More like Scourge-era. Actually no, I'd still call them 40k era Night Lords. They have mutants, possessed and berzerkers in their ranks. Granted, they may have experienced only three hundred years post-Heresy but those three hundred years changed them as much as the 7-year Heresy changed entire Legions.

 

So if you're looking Heresy-era Night Lords, then Savage Weapons by A D-B in the Age of Darkness anthology, The Lion by Gav Thorpe(well, more like a cameo but the overall story wasn't too bad), there's another cameo in The First Heretic by A D-B(Go figure a Night Lord is the first to say "Death to the False Emperor") as well as the novella Prince of Crows again by A D-B in the Shadows of Treachery anthology. Definitely HH-era. Doesn't show a whole lot of the Night Lords mentality but it does give them some character and representation.

 

Overall, in the beginning yes, the characters usually start out devoid of a personality, like pretty much any character at the beginning of any series. But that's what the series is for: to build the personality, to build the character. The Horus Heresy isn't just an isolated event or an era made up by a few isolated events, it is a galaxy spanning war fought between pretty much everyone and their dogs from the Imperials to the Traitors to the isolated Human remnant that was randomly discovered to the xenos to the planetary government that decided to reclaim its traditions and sever ties with the Imperium. So some flatness is to be expected. And as [TA]Typher pointed out, sometimes the entire novel is just flat. Sometimes it is like Legion by Dan Abnett where you don't really know who is who and even though you are given a ton, you still know there's more out there and you want it.

[Deus Imperator Vult]

Some are well written and ooze personality. Sevatar and Khârn are examples of this. The Night Naughter is still lackluster and one tracked, but after reading the Prince of crows I am seriously wanting a NL army. Sevatar was that well written. I used to think Pertarabo was dull and boring, but after Angels Exterminatus I now find him very interesting. He legion is still boring, but his motivations and personality are very Intriguing. There are more that have been extremely well done. It's so nice to read a book from a marines point of view in which he's not a two syllable speaking war robot.

There have been some stinkers in the HH series though.

Deliverance lost... I pretty much didn't care about anyone in the book. It's hard to get invested in a one sided story. It was like reading a story from a gretchin's point of view about a battle the Orks were not only beaten, but insulted and peed on. The book reminded me of something I would have written at the age of 14. My team wins, without so much as a struggle or loss of life and the other guys all die horribly in a fire without so much as a shining moment to show they were involved at all.

Look at the depictions of Corax in that book. Flat, dull and without life. The first 40 pages show him to be a genius when he is navigating the lab-maze, but then on Deliverance someone removes his brain and he sits and drools in the corner for the rest of the book. Now compare that to Pert in Angels Exterminatus, or to Russ in Prospero Burns (amazing BTW), or Angron and Logar in Betrayer. the way those last two played off each other, the palpable tension of emotions between them was amazing. looking at these examples the stark difference in what makes a primarch a primarch becomes clear. Who wants to read about a sub-par primarch? I don't.

I haven't read the First Heretic but I hear Corax comes off better in it. That's good, but it doesn't help Deliverance Lost, which has been one of the worst HH books I've read. There are other examples, but this one was the clearest to explain. Either don't use the primarchs in your story, write them better and more believable or make a point to excuse them from the story so I'm not disappointed in them. No one wants to read a lackluster one-sided story about their favorite legion. The Book Fulgrim was another example of this. Was there any Iron Hands Characters in that book that had a personality? was there any Iron Hands that actually lived through that book? the answer is a resounding 'No' to both of those questions.

Look at Fabius in Angels Eterminatus he's crazy and scary. As much as I hate the guy it's hard not to appreciate the fact that he is so well written he gives you the creeps. Now compare him to pretty much everyone in Decent of Angels. Boring and flat. I read that book and wondered if these characters ever smile or joke with each other. Compare those DA to the DA in Ravenwing and you'll see a vast difference.

In General books that have 15 characters with similarly difficult names are much harder to get involved with the characters. I hate reading 2 or 3 pages only to realize I've confused characters and now I have to do the mental math to correct the story in my head.

Having great characters really depends on the writer, the writing style and how much they've brainstormed the plot lines of the book I would say. Some of the writers I love have been really disappointing me recently. Thankfully some of the new ones haven't

Typher I think you're spot on. Generally I love the heresy but there are some books that are just poor for one reason or another. Deliverance was definitely one of these, Battle for the Abyss, Decent of Angels too. I struggled with Legion and the UM one on Calth thats title escapes me mostly because it was hard to care and/or remember the characters. Like you say 15+ similarly named characters makes a plot fairly hard to follow but thats not saying either were bad books only that they needed alot more attention than, say, Prince of Crows that was a pleasure to read.

Corax is definitely better in First Heretic and Raven's Flight that's why I felt like Deliverence lost was such a kick in the teeth its like they just dropped the Ravens IQ by about a hundred points. Maybe he took a more substantial blow to the head on the black sands than we thought.

I think the best defence against anyone saying the heresy has flat characters or, as I've heard a couple of people say, the mortal characters are dull and the books only focus on the Astartes is one character Lotara Sarrin. She is one of the best human characters I've ever read... honestly I'd buy a book just about her.