Gav's next Dark Angels novel out in June

[Brother dean]

 

 



There are a few people who hold Savage Weapons as the best piece of DA lore around. Myself included.

 

I'm confused, are you agreeing with me? The content of your post would suggest you are, but the tone does not.

 

I would agree it's one of the better written pieces of DA lore out there, followed by the Lion's representation in Prince of Crows. In fact, I'd argue that the Prince of Crows prologue is a perfect example of how quality trumps quantity when it comes to building the character and theme of a legion/chapter/character.

I think his point was that A D-B wrote "Crows" and look how well he represented him.

[FerociousBeast]

 

Take a look at how far the Night Lords have come under ADB's direction from a background/character development perspective and you'll see what DA fans would like to see for our legion/chapter. Quality, not quantity.

 

ADB's success with the Night Lords comes from the fact that they were largely a blank canvas. He could do what he wanted within a pretty broad set of boundaries. A writer coming at the Dark Angels does not have that kind of leeway due to our wealth of rich background from the ancient "Deathwing" short story and 2nd edition to today. Not to say that all writers equally respect the established boundaries for a chapter (Abnett, I'm looking at you and your "Vlka Fenryka"... And let's not let McNeill and his Thousand Sons off the hook either), but I would argue that the most RESPONSIBLE writers DO try to respect the lore and by extension the fanbase by not overly trampling on the fluff that is near and dear to so many players' hearts.

[The Shadow Guard]

Well, after 16 years of association with the Unforgiven I am a Dark Angels Junkie.... there I said it! ...and I remember the time when I first stepped in to this universe in late 1997 when information, books, codexes etc were hard to coe by as the then new 3rd edition was about to be released in 1998. So I am absolutely delighted with the profusion of literature coming out about the DA even if some of them are not on par with others....

I actually liked Ravenwing ( I am a very forgiving person.... ), Purging of Kadillus, Angels of Darkness and all the DA Horus Heresy Novels and Novellas..... despite their specific shortcomings....

SO I say...Yaaayyyy to more DA novels..... Love to see something that includes one of the second founding chapters....

SG

Even if it's not stellar, it shows that DA still is alive. Many people say we get the shaft, etc, etc. But the truth is we regularly get fiction featuring the DA. Apart from HH I don't think there's a First founding with so much dedicated literature as us.

I think that's the thrust of most DA fan's complaints (mine included). We're written about so prolifically and have arguably one of the more evocative legion background/themes, and yet there is so little in our fiction that lives up to its potential. I'd posit that Gav is one of the chief perpetrators of this problem, not just because of his sub-par writing, but because he seems to hog the DA writing agenda.
Take a look at how far the Night Lords have come under ADB's direction from a background/character development perspective and you'll see what DA fans would like to see for our legion/chapter. Quality, not quantity.

There are a few people who hold Savage Weapons as the best piece of DA lore around. Myself included.

I would concur....

[Saphrael]

I think his point was that A D-B wrote "Crows" and look how well he represented him.

 

Yeah but that was precisely my point too, which is why the phrasing of his response confused me.

 

 

ADB's success with the Night Lords comes from the fact that they were largely a blank canvas. He could do what he wanted within a pretty broad set of boundaries. A writer coming at the Dark Angels does not have that kind of leeway due to our wealth of rich background from the ancient "Deathwing" short story and 2nd edition to today.

 

I think the 'blank canvas' as a contributor to success has more to do with characters than themes. For example the Imperial Fists were more of a blank canvas from a thematic perspective - only their tactical predilication was established before the HH series - and it hasn't made the writing on them any better (which is not to say that it's bad). The Night Lords had an established and unique theme, mostly notably as the non-Chaos rebels with an emphasis on dark personalities and terror tactics, but it's the characters and exposition (i.e. writing ability) from AD-B that's made the Night Lords shine.

 

The fact that internal structures and story arc already existed for Dark Angels shouldn't have hampered a good writer from making our fluff and stories excellent, as demonstrated by AD-B's Night Lords. I.e. HH writers were hemmed in by bad DA characters (their own fault), not by pre-existing DA lore. There is a wealth of rich history and prose on medieval knights which could have been exploited (the way viking/barbarian themes have been exploited for the Space Puppies) and given us great, detailed DA lore. To me this is the key failing of Angels of Darkness, the other being that the book hamstrung HH DA with two dull main characters.

[FerociousBeast]

There's nothing inherently dull about Zahariel or Nemiel. Their problem, to your point, is the poor writing. But no one was hamstrung with them. Corswain, by contrast, is no more inherently interesting than his Black Library forebears. People just like him better because he stuck a sword through Curze and ADB included some text about him being one of the greatest warriors of the Astartes. Actually, if I judge him solely on his conversation or backstory or motivations, I find him just as instantly forgettable as most of the rest of the HH series's cast of characters.

 

You pick out the lack of details drawn from medieval knights as being a failing of most of the books, but that's precisely the point I'm trying to make about the difficulty of writing the Dark Angels. For nearly two decades, they've been portrayed not as medieval knights, but as sinister monks. The Order was portrayed as a monastic order of knights rather than a chivalrous one. So if, like ADB, you want to take the Dark Angels in an Arthurian direction rather than the traditional, monastic approach, you're going to have some fan backlash. But if you want to write the Night Lords with a newer, fresher approach, it's much easier.

 

Edit: "key failing of Descent of Angels" I think you meant.

[Marshal Rohr]

Describe ONE monastic knight order that was also not bound by some form of honor code?

 

The idea of warrior monks is not in anyway realistic or interesting. Guys who rewrite books and make wine in their off time when not at choir practice?

[FerociousBeast]

Describe ONE monastic knight order that was also not bound by some form of honor code?

 

The idea of warrior monks is not in anyway realistic or interesting. Guys who rewrite books and make wine in their off time when not at choir practice?

 

Interesting specimen. It has the appearance of a reply and yet touches on nothing.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

This is getting OT and unpleasant. A bit more constraint, if you will, gentlemen.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Describe ONE monastic knight order that was also not bound by some form of honor code?

 

The idea of warrior monks is not in anyway realistic or interesting. Guys who rewrite books and make wine in their off time when not at choir practice?

Interesting specimen. It has the appearance of a reply and yet touches on nothing.

You attack the idea of them being bound by a code, calling it Arthurian, and insinuating it isn't close to the original background, yet ignore the fact that all the major Orders had extensive codes and militaries. Why would the Dark Angels not draw on that, instead of traditional monastic roles that were not focused on combat? It's a waste of resources to make a space marine more interested in religious scholarship than fighting things.

 

It makes absolutely no sense. A D-B took the Dark Angels and the Templars in a direction that focuses on then being knights, but you don't like that why? Your logic is impossible to follow. You're lucky he decided to write about them in the first place, or Gav and the Mikes would be all the expansion the chapter actually gets.

[Azoriel]

You make it sound as though the Dark Angels were almost strictly monastic for the past 20 years and then suddenly got rewritten as Arthurian; this is not so.  The Arthurian and monastic aspects are both equally old, having sprung into being at the same time, yet are emphasized during different eras of game history.  (Really, the only thing older would be the Native American aspect from Space Hulk, which has long since been abandoned, save for perhaps the styling of certain feathered headdresses.)

From Codex: Angels of Death:

Describing the Order (30K)-

 

The brave warrior knights (Lion El'Jonson) encountered belonged to a group
known simply as the Order. The Order had a reputation across
all of Caliban for the honesty, nobility and fearless skill of its
brother-knights in battle. Uniquely amongst the knights of
Caliban, the members, or brothers, of the Order were selected
by merit rather than inheritance. Anyone could join the Order,
no matter how low-born they might be. Contingents of
brother-knights from the Order travelled across the planet,
giving their aid wherever it was needed.

Describing the Dark Angels of 40K-

 

The organisation of the Dark Angels Chapter has been shaped
primarily by events in its history. As a result it is different
from that of any other order. The Chapter is monastic in nature
with much time being given over to worship and prayer. There
are also many different levels within the Chapter which
individuals may gradually rise through. On attaining each
level, they fmd out a little more about the truth behind the
Dark Angels' origins. Most Dark Angels themselves know
nothing about the beginnings of the Chapter. It is only those at
the very top who have learnt the whole truth.

 

The whole "we are all equal here" attitude is a direct parallel to the intent behind the Round Table, and Luther's betrayal of Jonson shattering Caliban is moreorless the same thing as Lancelot's betrayal of Arthur shattering Camelot.  Arguably, the only thing monastic about the Order of 30K would be the fact that they lived in fortress monasteries.  It's not until after Jonson's "death" that you really see the whole monastic feel come to the fore, and even then it's not really so much in the sense that they work on arts and crafts on the side (that's a Blood Angels thing) or practice self-flagellation (most certainly an Imperial Fists thing), but rather in the fact that they spend so much time in "worship and prayer".  (I've always found this tidbit to be difficult to reconcile with the non-religious nature of Astartes cults.  Spending long hours brooding over past wrongs?  You bet.  But worship and prayer?  Not so much.  But it's there, so I won't contest it.)

 

(But what about the fact that they torture people inquisition-style, you might ask?  You might see this as analogous to the Christian Inquisition of old, but I see it as being more equivalent to the Spanish Inquisition instead, which was nominally done for the Catholic church as a whole, but in truth was run and performed by the Spanish kingdom for their own purposes.  Most certainly dark and seedy, but not exactly a sign of monasticism.)

[FerociousBeast]

 

(I've always found this tidbit to be difficult to reconcile with the non-religious nature of Astartes cults.  Spending long hours brooding over past wrongs?  You bet.  But worship and prayer?  Not so much.  But it's there, so I won't contest it.)

 

This idea of the Astartes as atheist is new to the Horus Heresy novels. Religious practice had been a huge part of Space Marine fluff up until the HH series.

 

 

Your logic is impossible to follow.

 

If my logic is impossible to follow, it's because you're reading way too much into it. Reading your two replies and comparing them to what I've actually said is quite amusing. This right here:

 

"You attack the idea of them being bound by a code, calling it Arthurian"

 

Please provide a quote as to where exactly I said I don't like the idea of the Dark Angels having a code of honor. I'll wait.

[Marshal Rohr]

This isn't the first time you've expressed displeasure with how much other people enjoy A D-Bs vision of the Dark Angels, and your thinly veiled attempt to condemn it is incredibly apparent to those of us who witnessed your displeasure when Savage Weapons came out.

[A D-B]

 

 

Take a look at how far the Night Lords have come under ADB's direction from a background/character development perspective and you'll see what DA fans would like to see for our legion/chapter. Quality, not quantity.

 

ADB's success with the Night Lords comes from the fact that they were largely a blank canvas. He could do what he wanted within a pretty broad set of boundaries.

 

With respect, that's deeply untrue. The Night Lords were practically the only Chaos Legion with a novel, with their primarch detailed and shown in it, and it was one of Games Workshop's bestselling and most popular novels back then, which was the main reason they said "Hey, how about doing more Night Lords?" to me in the first place.

 

My success with them may have come down to plenty of varied reasons, I'd never dispute that, but the fact they were a blank canvas just wasn't one of them, because they categorically weren't one lore-wise. In many ways, Soul Hunter is a direct contradiction of almost all the popular Night Lord lore we had up until that point - a fact that was noted heavily and often in most of its reviews upon release. What it sticks to are the general, famous themes (again, not using the blank canvas at all) as laid out in t he IA article,  yet it contradicts plenty of the former details assured as "true" in Lord of the Night. It sticks to the original lore and contradicts some of the newer stuff. Both of those aspects were frequently commented on, and most often perceived favourably. Anything but a blank canvas.

 

I'm not saying a Chaos Legion had as much lore to fall back on as the Dark Angels. No Chaos Legion does, or likely ever will. But there was plenty to adhere to, and plenty to contradict - both of which I did in abundance - and that shatters any notion of a blank canvas existing as a favourable position unique to the Night Lords compared to the Dark Angels, let alone playing any part in the series' success. It's simply not true or relevant.

 

Added to that, I can tell you straight-up as someone paid to contribute to this license that there's no sense of constraint or boundaries on anyone, with any faction. Dan's Ultramarines aren't beholden to Graham's. Dan's Curze isn't beholden to mine. My Dark Angels aren't beholden to Gav's. And so on. Apart from trying not to contradict something as brazen as dates, there's rarely ever consideration of overlap or contradiction, because the entire license is about putting your own perceptions of a faction into print. So in the way you're suggesting blank canvases do exist, they exist uniformly for everyone and every faction, with no benefit to success at all.

[The Shadow Guard]

Thanks for chipping in A D-B,.... I look at life in a  far more simplistic fashion and would argue that the main reason for the resounding success of your Night Lords novels is the superb writing style, depth of character development and maintenance of suspense that you have consistently managed.... Credit where credit is due..... :)

 

But heading back to the new DA Novel... Master of Sanctity.... whetever the content may be...the cover art just kills.... Similarly the "Purging of Cadillus" had a brilliant piece of art work... We Dark Angels fans really cant complain too much about being ignored.. :)

 

SG

[Wade Garrett]

@ ADB:

 

On the one hand, I understand that every author (and for that matter, every fan) is going to have their own ideas of what any given character should and could be.

 

For that matter, a character may act very differently depending on what situation he or she is in, for example, me at the office in my work clothes is going to act differently and react to things differently than me in my jeans and T-shirt hanging out with the boys.

 

With that said...well, take Erebus. Depending on the author, he goes from a zealous disciple of the Dark Gods capable of subtle manipulation to a sniveling little toad who lacks even such good qualities as "enough intelligence to not taunt the angry Warmaster".

 

Now, it may be that all this is supposed to show Erebus can put up a good front when he has to but inside he's completely gutless, or in the reverse that he's not above pretending to be a gutless whiner if it better serves the goals of the Ruinous Powers, but (to this reader anyway) it starts to seem as if about half of these differing portrayals of Erebus are the Alpha Legion messing around with their brothers in the XVII.

 

I'm not demanding uniformity, but a little consistency would not be unwelcome.

[A D-B]

@ ADB:

 

On the one hand, I understand that every author (and for that matter, every fan) is going to have their own ideas of what any given character should and could be.

 

For that matter, a character may act very differently depending on what situation he or she is in, for example, me at the office in my work clothes is going to act differently and react to things differently than me in my jeans and T-shirt hanging out with the boys.

 

With that said...well, take Erebus. Depending on the author, he goes from a zealous disciple of the Dark Gods capable of subtle manipulation to a sniveling little toad who lacks even such good qualities as "enough intelligence to not taunt the angry Warmaster".

 

Now, it may be that all this is supposed to show Erebus can put up a good front when he has to but inside he's completely gutless, or in the reverse that he's not above pretending to be a gutless whiner if it better serves the goals of the Ruinous Powers, but (to this reader anyway) it starts to seem as if about half of these differing portrayals of Erebus are the Alpha Legion messing around with their brothers in the XVII.

 

I'm not demanding uniformity, but a little consistency would not be unwelcome.

 

That's absolutely fair. (Not on-topic or relevant to the point I was replying to - bad Wade, bad - but totally fair.)

 

It comes from a lot of angles, though. Some authors will just think portrayal X was wrong and/or uninteresting. Some will try to line them up and fail to hit the same tone. Some won't even read what came before, trusting in their knowledge of the lore to tell it their way. Some will nail it perfectly and be condemned as boring.

 

You get the rough with the smooth. On one hand, yes, it sucks that Erebus comes across like that. On the other hand, we're not all tied to Bill King's Space Wolves, or Graham's Ultramarines, or Gav's Dark Angels, or my Night Lords, and so on. The freedom you get to run with the lore can make for inconsistency, but I'd argue it's a lesser evil (and much more often a positive) than being strictly bound to what came before. What's uniformity and what's consistency? Who measure that in a manuscript? What if they're wrong? This is a subject that's incredibly hard to make rules and boundaries for. Who's to say portrayal X of Erebus is right compared to portrayal Y? Which one are the other authors supposed to follow? Why that one? (And so on.)

 

So, yeah, I get you. But measuring that in reality, and enforcing it, is next to impossible with the way the license is set up, and that's much more often a force for good.

[Phoebus]

My thoughts:

I have no issues with Gav Thorpe as a person. Until someone can demonstrably prove to me that there is a plethora of authors chomping at the bit to write about the Dark Angels, but are prevented from doing so by Gav on account of him feeling that it is "his" corner of the setting, I will be happy to know that someone wants to write new stories about the Unforgiven.

Now, am I necessarily content with Gav's take on the Dark Angels? No.

I won't get into the little things. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those and they do add up.

What's more important, to me, is that while Gav gets the central themes of the Unforgiven, what he can't seem to do is employ those themes in his stories without casting his cast in a questionable light in the process.

Does Sammael, for instance, have to screw over the people of Kadillus Harbor and ignore an orkish attack force in Ravenwing?  No, not really. Not as described, at any rate. Even the uninitiated among his task force clue in to how nonsensical his orders are. It's just a dick move on Sammael's part, and it's written in to reinforce that the Dark Angels are very secretive. One chapter ended with Sammael sharing something eminently sensible with the reader (that people in the Inner Circle are chosen for their ability to balance the needs of the Hunt with the Chapter's duty to the Imperium), but the next one started with him doing a 180 degree turn. It would not have been cosmic for Sammael to use his forces in a way that made sense and to give them a direct order to stay out of the Chapter Keep no matter what. He had a perfect reason for doing so: an Interrogator-Chaplain had sealed the damn thing to begin with.  If the average Battle-Brother can't obey a simple order, then the Dark Angels have bigger problems.

Similarly, there is zero, ZERO, logic in the Dark Angels setting up their own battle-brothers as unknowing bait to lure out the Death Guard Thyestes. Again, this is a case of the author just wanting to drive home a point but choosing (what seems to me, at least) such a ham-fisted way to do so.

That's why I'm worried about Master of Sanctity. A Chapter whose themes have not been handled very sensibly is about to get another novel, and this time it stars a character who has been increasingly over-the-top way lately. If some of Asmodai's background blurbs in the Codex were eyebrow-raising ("And They Shall Know No Laughter", as mentioned above), his entry in the "Warlords of the Dark Millennium" is just silly. I worry about what this means for this series.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Space Marines are smart, the kind of smart that can calculate void combat whilst swinging a sword at someone that has invaded the bridge. Why can't Gav for once portray us as something other than bungling fools? Sammy and They Shall Know No Laughter should have viable lies to cover every occasion, just "I'm not telling" is far too juvenile for characters of their so called ability.

I will be buying and reading this book at the first opportunity as I too am an unashamed fan boy of the DA, but I am not really looking forward to choking on more fists of ham.

[Saphrael]

I came online ready to indulge even more on the 'blank canvas' argument and found the big man himself has articulated my retort better than I ever could, so I'll address some specific points from FerociousBeast before rejoining the 'Gav sledgefest'.

 

FerociousBeast, on 15 May 2014 - 06:31, said:

There's nothing inherently dull about Zahariel or Nemiel. Their problem, to your point, is the poor writing. But no one was hamstrung with them. Corswain, by contrast, is no more inherently interesting than his Black Library forebears. People just like him better because he stuck a sword through Curze and ADB included some text about him being one of the greatest warriors of the Astartes. Actually, if I judge him solely on his conversation or backstory or motivations, I find him just as instantly forgettable as most of the rest of the HH series's cast of characters.

I'm pretty sure I've heard about authors not wanting to take on the HH DA because of those characters, and it seems to me that Gav dealt with one of them the way he did to free himself from their arc (admittedly in his usual hamfisted and fan irritating fashion). To me, that's the very definition of being hamstrung by bad characters. As to whether Zahariel or Nemiel were interesting or dull, I haven't read the books in a while so I can't bring detail or facts to bear, other than to say that I found them shallow, their actions inconsistent and their dialogue boring. Subjective, but it'll have to do.

 

I also have to strongly disagree that the reason the DA community has embraced Corswain is because of him being described as a great warrior. Sure that's a factor because the 'my daddy can take your daddy' element is always going to be present, but I think it's because DA fans finally got a character that acted consistently with the core values of the legion. I also think you're underestimating the significance of the Savage Weapons encounter as demonstrating the character of the two legions present. Corswain and Alajos showed bravery, self sacrifice, duty and respect for their opponents throughout: perfectly representative of the knightly honour we've expected from DA since we heard about The Order in the Angels of Death codex.

 

Not to mention that it wasn't just stabbing Curze that people liked (in fact I didn't like yet another backstab from the DA), it was the way Corswain came to the aid of his liege lord, which contrasted nicely with the Night Lords who were content to gang up on Alajos rather than rush to the aid of their embattled primarch. So the first time we see Cor he's demonstrating what it means to be a knightly DA, this after a decade of HH and 40k DA characters who seem needlessly capricious and whose actions, motivations and dialgoue seem to be consistently bewildering.

 

Now, back on topcic: Gav bashing. I have nothing against the man personally, I'm sure he's a great guy and I'd love to have a few pints with him and chew the fat about a shared passion. However, I don't like his writing (for reasons that have been articulated by myself and others ad nauseam here and elsewhere) and I don't want him near my favourite fictional group of tragically sinister space knights anymore. That said, I'm a shameless DA whore who lacks the self restraint required to vote against Gav's writing with my consumer dollar, so I'll buy Master of Sanctity on release day... and act like the emo space marine I am and whine about it online a few days later.

[FerociousBeast]

 

 

ADB's success with the Night Lords comes from the fact that they were largely a blank canvas. He could do what he wanted within a pretty broad set of boundaries.

 

With respect, that's deeply untrue. The Night Lords were practically the only Chaos Legion with a novel, with their primarch detailed and shown in it, and it was one of Games Workshop's bestselling and most popular novels back then, which was the main reason they said "Hey, how about doing more Night Lords?" to me in the first place.

 

...

 

Added to that, I can tell you straight-up as someone paid to contribute to this license that there's no sense of constraint or boundaries on anyone, with any faction. Dan's Ultramarines aren't beholden to Graham's. Dan's Curze isn't beholden to mine. My Dark Angels aren't beholden to Gav's. And so on. Apart from trying not to contradict something as brazen as dates, there's rarely ever consideration of overlap or contradiction, because the entire license is about putting your own perceptions of a faction into print. So in the way you're suggesting blank canvases do exist, they exist uniformly for everyone and every faction, with no benefit to success at all.

 

Actually, I think you made my point for me. By blank canvas I certainly don't mean there was nothing to draw from at all, but in the context of the Dark Angels, they were, as I said, "largely" a blank canvas. One novel as compared to I don't know how many for the Dark Angels, 0 dedicated codex releases compared to 2-3.5 for the Dangles, 0 video games compared to 1 (Space Hulk, were there any others? can't remember...)

 

You had one novel and one ancient IA article you had to worry about, primarily. Someone coming at the Dangles on the other hand knows that there is a lot of baggage w/ Team Caliban.

 

And, to his great credit, Gav takes that baggage seriously and seems to really conscientiously try to honor it. I get more than a little tired of all the Gav bashing, frankly. And I've done a fair bit of it myself, I know, particularly regarding Angels of Darkness. (Not because of Astelan's conspiracy theories--I've always recognised them for what they are--but due to Boreas's feckless characterization and the Dark Angels' Keystone Kops-style bungling about. And because the suicide at the end was completely unnecessary due to the Dark Angels' sus-an membranes.) ...Yeah, so I just bashed Gav again. And I'm tired of it by George!

 

Gav's not the best author at BL, but he's definitely not the worst. He tries to honor our background, and while his efforts might not be as nuanced and effective as we might hope, seriously, we're talking about the Black Library here. As the proud holder of a BA in English, I personally will not be satisfied with a 40k novel until Herman Melville, Dostoevsky, or Cormac McCarthy tackles it, but that's a rather ridiculous standard to hold our friends at the BL to, isn't it?

 

And for those of you who won't be satisfied until the Dark Angels' character is rewritten into that of chivalrous, Round Table-style knights, well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

[Brother dean]

. And because the suicide at the end was completely unnecessary due to the Dark Angels' sus-an membranes.) ..

 

Nobody likes to admit they got rickrolled...

 

Or in a more logical route.  The foundations of everything that made up Boreas world view (Galaxy View?) had just been stripped away and he found himself agreeing with a known subversive...  Those who are the most fanatical in their beliefs tend to crash the worst when those beliefs are shattered...

 

Lorgar anybody?

[Marshal Rohr]

But why would A D-Bs characterization be rewriting and not adding to what has come before? The Grey Knights being corruptible is a rewrite. Templars being devotees of the Imperial Cult is a rewrite. Sapphon no longer existing is a rewrite. The Heresy-era Legion, a few decades out from being a knightly order, having knightly traditions is not a rewrite because there was nothing about them before.

 

A D-B is the first to point out that the character of a legion is not the same as the chapter 10,000 years later. He led the charge to enlighten players that the Chaos Legions as represented in the 3.5 codex is not an accurate picture of their nature anymore. He's even writing an entire series to clarify the Black Legion is not the Luna Wolves 3.0. Hating on the fact that people like the Dark Angels as knights without ever asking him what he thinks the Dark Angels are like as a chapter isn't really fair to him, is it?

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

I love the HH Dark Angels being knightly and chivalrous. It is a reminder of what Luther, in his arrogance, jealousy and foolishness destroyed. It makes our descent into darkness have more feeling than just 'oh, the DA are secretive jerks, and have been ever since they were born!'

[Phoebus]

FerociousBeast, my problem with your argument is that it's contingent on extremes.

 

Where criticism of Gav's work is concerned, my options as a reader shouldn't be limited to the pinnacle of literature or expecting to be disappointed.  It's not as if I'm upset at Gav because he highlights the capacity of the Dark Angels to do bad things.  I'm disappointed because he doesn't use those themes well in his story.  He uses them in a clumsy way that makes me, the reader, break my suspension of disbelief.  The setting has become more nuanced in the last eleven (!) years, but the way the Dark Angels are shown doing their thing hasn't really changed.

 

Let me put it this way.  Did you ever read "The Chains of Command?  I think it was also included in later printings of Nightbringer, (which was also released way back, in 2002).  The big thing about the Ultramarines was how they treated the Codex Astartes as kind of their Holy Bible of Tactics.  This theme was so important that sometimes making sure that it got across to the reader was more important than how it got across.  So here we had a story wherein the secondary source of conflict (the conflict that, in fact, would go on to inform the first three novels of the Ultramarines series and a couple of related short stories) came down to whether or not Uriel Ventris (or Idaeus, I can't remember) could - or even should -  prevent an enemy bridge-crossing in a manner not prescribed by the Codex Astartes.  The basic idea - showing how even the super-soldiers of the far-future could become slaves to doctrine once they made a religion out of it - was valid enough.  It goes hand-in-hand with the setting.  The execution, though, was lackluster at best.  It was an inelegant way to handle an interesting and original concept.

 

That's where I'm at with Gav and his portrayal of the Dark Angels' themes.   The moral descent of the Dark Angels is a great concept.  The idea of these monastic knights who justify their sins in the name of preserving terrible secrets is great.  The conflict that comes with “balancing the needs of the hunt with the duty the Chapter [owes] to the Imperium” is delicious.  So much more so when the characters committing the sins and telling the lies are still moral enough to realize they are doing wrong.  The execution of all these concepts, though, leaves much to be desired.  I'm tired of the sins and the lies translating into the characters - powerful supermen with remarkable intellects - bungling things.

 

Where the portrayal of the Dark Angels is concerned, I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing for an injection of Arthurian themes.  I would go so far as to say that those who have mentioned the Arthurian mythos in this forum are more than likely grasping at something that's not quite apropos... but they're not sure how to better frame what they want.  I don't want to get into a huge dissertation of chivalry and the different types of knights that existed centuries ago in the real world.  I would like, however, to cite a few facts in order to eliminate some misunderstandings.

 

The Order, as shown in the Codices, is fairly nondescript.  They were a meritocratic organization that didn't associate knighthood with aristocracy.  They did share some similarities to the western Christian historical military orders, though.  They based themselves out of monasteries, appear to have forfeited personal property, and their mission - to protect the people of Caliban from the Great Beasts  - somewhat parallels the original mission statement of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (who were sworn to protect pilgrims heading to Jerusalem).

 

The Order also features some themes related to secrets and initiation into "circles of trust".  These serve two purposes, in my humble opinion.  The first, which I think is an uncontested fact, is to serve as foreshadowing to what the Dark Angels Legion and, later, the Unforgiven would eventually become.  The second, which is purely conjecture on my part, was to further highlight the similarities between the Order and what popular culture assumed about the Knights Templar.

 

Nothing that Aaron Dembski-Bowden or Dan Abnett have introduced in their (sadly, limited) forays in the realm of the First Legion contradicts any of the above.  The chivalry that Corswain and Alajos display is not mutually exclusive from that of the historical Christian orders of knights.

 

In closing, I don't think we need to worry about the Dark Angels becoming "Arthurian".  What authors should strive for, in my very humble opinion, is to ensure that they are accurately conveying what an order of knights might looks like after ten thousand years of trying to balance heroic acts against sinister deeds in order to protect terrible secrets.

[Marshal Rohr]

Personally, the Dark Angels drawing on the pop culture mythos of the Knights Templar is a cool concept. Even the newer bits about Azrael exerting undue influence over successors would help build that. Amassing property through the legal tithe worlds, expanding their intelligence networks through the successors until the chapter has a shadow empire that may or may not exists is cool to me and adds to their sinister nature.