Gav's next Dark Angels novel out in June

[FerociousBeast]

 

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.

 

Do I dispute that Gav is heavy handed with his handling of the Dark Angels and their themes? No. I've made the same point in my (many) diatribes against Angels of Darkness. Do I wish his stories were better? Yes. Do I think he is far worse than the other BL writers? No. Most of them I've read are at his level or worse. Often far worse.

 

Yes, I do come at BL novels with pretty high standards and the expectation of disappointment. That's just the way it is, can't help it. But I don't find that Gav disappoints me far greater than any of the others. And some of the other writers who are definitely "better" than Gav, like Abnett, annoy me by their approach to the setting or the liberties they feel (in my opinion) too free to take.

 

 

Where the portrayal of the Dark Angels is concerned, I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing for an injection of Arthurian themes.

 

You would be incorrect there, actually, as certain members of this board like Ronin_eX have explicitly used the word "Arthurian" in reference to their desires for changes to the Dark Angels' background. I was highly active in the Project Unforgiven effort a few years ago, and one of the main debates we kept having was whether or not the Dark Angels should be primarily monastic or Arthurian in theme.

 

Marshall 2 Crusaders and I debated in this very thread whether Arthurian themes were appropriate, but our unpleasant attitudes prompted one of the mods to delete the posts.

 

So it's clear that many Dangles here want more Arthur and more chivalry. I would suggest that reading Wikipedia's entry on chivalry would show them just how wrong they are to apply chivalry to the Dark Angels in either the 30th or 40th millennium, but I doubt the proponents will be convinced.

[Brother dean]

We need the Knights Templar background expanded (we work on the side of good with our own agenda) and the White Templars need the Arthurian and Crusaders background...

 

2p...

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

The very question of whether chivalry even existed can be debated among historians :P I see the HH DA as more chivalrous than not at all chivalrous. They have a code of honour based around a feudal society. Jonson was a Knight. A Knight in an order based on meritocracy, sure, but a Knight nonetheless. What is more he bought into the idea that one had a hierarchy based on loyalty and service. As a Knight he was beholden in service to his Lord and Master (the GM of The Order, later, the Emperor) and that loyalty is its own reward, to quote him on the issue. I think most of us can accept this is true of the 30k era Dark Angels and it stands to reason, based on the feudal system, that they, in turn, felt obliged to protect those who were beholden to them. For a Knight, this was the people of Caliban who served/were protected by the Order. Later, it became members of the Imperium.

 

Chivalry, in the idea of favours for their ladies, always showing mercy, knowing how to dance etc. is not the definition of chivalry I think we can use for them at any time. But to say there were not chivalrous is to forget the other side of the coin - loyalty, service, courage, skill, honour - which they are shown to dish out. I would consider this to be the militaristic side of Chivalry.

 

In essence, I would say that HH DA have two basic themes: A Monastic Order and their role as feudal knight-protectors

 

40k Astartes of the DA have a tension between thinking in terms of loyalty, service etc. and doing whatever it takes to keep their secrets and to wipe out their shame. Because of their feudal origins there can be no greater shame than their own brothers turning on their Lord. The very same brothers who swore an oath to serve their Lord even unto death. That they were forced to destroy the very world they swore to protect. For them there could be no greater shame. The 40k DA have much more in common with, as M2C suggested, the popular myths around the Knights Templar. Not the reality, but the myths. The modern DA look like Knights, they probably want to be Knights, but they are no longer Knights inside. Sure, outside the Inner Circle they probably consider themself to be a Knight, but the Inner Circle know the truth - that they are anything but. yet, if they win, if they can keep this a secret just a little while longer, if they can just redeem themselves then they will be again.

 

Sorry for the ramble, but thats my take on the DA

[Interrogator Stobz]

I'd just like to say that I'm sorry for slagging Gav, we should be thanking him for his continued efforts at writing about our beloved Legion. If he didn't do it would anyone? How does GW allocate their resources in the BL department? From what I can gather from A D-Bs posts the writers just write what and how they like and we may very well get neglected if the writers chose to write something else. Thanks Mr Thorpe for your continued support of our wardolls fluff. I must be having a bipolar week

I like that the Lion is not above stabbing someone first, treachery was proven and the only punishment is death. Honour and justice are more important to DA than being the kind of nice that the word Chivalrous entails.

But...

Debating the style of knights we are is going in circles lads, try to relate it to Gavs new book

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

But circles are our thing Stobz :P

[Phoebus]

FerociousBeast, on 17 May 2014 - 09:45, said:

Do I dispute that Gav is heavy handed with his handling of the Dark Angels and their themes? No. I've made the same point in my (many) diatribes against Angels of Darkness. Do I wish his stories were better? Yes. Do I think he is far worse than the other BL writers? No. Most of them I've read are at his level or worse. Often far worse.

My response was specifically pointed to this:

 

FerociousBeast, on 16 May 2014 - 02:50, said:

I get more than a little tired of all the Gav bashing, frankly. ...

 

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?

Again, this is nothing personal against Gav. I'd be right there with you if someone was pouring hate against Gav, calling for him to quit, etc. That having been said, I think we have the right to level criticism against books that we buy for money and that we hope will entertain us. There's a huge, thick line, after all, between bashing a person and pointing out that they could do a better job.

 

Where "Arthurian" themes are concerned, I stand by my earlier words. With respect to Azoriel, I don't think Arthur and Camelot really apply to the Dark Angels. I think he's drawing some loose parallels between the two, but I think he'd agree that a comparison between them does not withstand serious inquiry.

 

What does one mean by "Arthurian", after all? Is it mounted warriors of the post-Roman tradition, like in the movie with Clive Owen? Is it the early legends, which focus less on romance and chivalry, or the latter material, like Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur? I don't think anyone wants to see courtly love a-la Lancelot, nor do I think they want to see Dark Angels hanging out in a round table and vacillating from friendly banter to hateful duels until someone comes up with a quest for them to fight. I suspect what a number of posters really mean is that they'd like their Dark Angels to not just be "torture monks", but to also show evidence of knightly traditions.

 

That's why I offered what I did about the western Christian military orders. The Dark Angels have far more in common with that kind of "knight" than any "Arthurian" counterpart - be it Mallory's Lancelot or Galahad, or the earlier proto-Gawaine depiction. Chivalry, as the ideal of Christian martial aristocracy, is not at all exclusive from the ethos of military orders such as the early Templars and Hospitallers. In fact, chivalry came into being at the same time as said orders. The chivalric codes of western and northern European knights spoke to religious convictions and obligations even when their adherents weren't members of a military order. That sort of chivalry and the behavior of Alajos and Corswain go hand in hand, and if that's the sort of chivalry people want to see more of, then I'm right there with them.

 

That's where the Dark Angels of the Great Crusade and the Horus Heresy are concerned, of course. As for the knightliness and chivalry of the Dark Angels in the 41st millennium? They are their own beast altogether.

 

So as far as I'm concerned, there aren't two themes ("monastic" and "knightly"), but one: that of the monastic military order of knights, which corresponds with our modern perception of the Templars - secrets, initiation, etc. Using this theme, the uninitiated battle-brothers of the line companies are the equivalents of the uninitiated sergeants and attendants who served and fought alongside the actual Templars. Historically, the sergeant was not a knight, and was not initiated in the Templar order itself. Likewise, the regular Dark Angel is not initiated in the Inner Circle, and does not display any "knightliness". This is because the Dark Angels achieve knightliness precisely by being initiated in their Chapter's circles of trust. This is reinforced by the new miniatures: robes, heraldic devices, etc., feature far more prominently on Veterans, the Deathwing, and other special characters and formations. Conversely, as a Dark Angel becomes more "knightly", he is also forced to make more and more terrible decisions. The sinister and secretive aspects they attain are what differentiates them from their Great Crusade/Horus Heresy ancestors.

[Cplwilks]

So, Master of Sanctity was available at the Horus Heresy Weekend - for those people wanting Sapphon goodness you will not be disappointed! About half way through and already I can see stuff that will be controversial but I'm enjoying it. Already had a 'holy crap' moment...

[Interrogator Stobz]

Pics or it didn't happen....please :D

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

Sapphon is in it?

 

 

 

SAPPHON IS IN IT?!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you please give me a description of the warrior! Any heraldry, wargear etc.

[Cplwilks]

From th first page we get

 

Clad in the black power armor associated with his calling, Sapphon was a

darker figure amongst the shadows of the desecrated shrine building. 

His helm was masked with the visage of a skull, his chestplate adorned

with the Imperial aquila, against which rested a large pendant formed as

a winged skull; a conversion field generator known as a rosarius gifted

to him by the arch cardinal of Canoptary Prime as a symbol of unity

with the Ecclesiarchy.  Auspex scans had indicated no threat within the

crumbling temple but the Chaplain carried his weapons ready, bolt pistol

in his right hand , his eagle-headed mace - a crozius arcanum - in the

left

 

Other than that nothing is coming to mind but as I said, i've yet to finish it

 

Plenty of Asmodai in it and

a lot of tension between Asmodai and Sapphon

 

 

EDIT: Spolier tags now working

[Cyfax]

So, Master of Sanctity was available at the Horus Heresy Weekend - for those people wanting Sapphon goodness you will not be disappointed! About half way through and already I can see stuff that will be controversial but I'm enjoying it. Already had a 'holy crap' moment...

I like it.. a LOT

Even more excited for the new novel now

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

thanks for the description, will help to have something to work off when I build my model of him

[Saphrael]

Okay, so I know this is just going to sound whiney, and given my comments in this thread thus far I'm going to come across as negative prick, but... golly gee is up with that description? As far as physical descriptions go it gives us nothing beyond what you'd expect for a chaplain, nothing new or distinctive to lend some characterisation to long anticipated DA character.

 

Uhck.

 

Still, it's not fair to judge a book by one (tiny) select passage. Fingers crossed this book bucks the Gav trend. Looking forward to your thoughts Cplwilks.

[Phoebus]

To be fair, none of Gav's previous Dark Angels focused much on providing distinctive physical descriptions for the characters.

[Komrk]

I agree with Phoebus' argument on knightly orders and the DA. Hence why my Teutonic Knight theme list was DA. Melee armed company vets and regular bikers as Halbrudder and Black Knights/Deathwing Knights as Ritterbrudder. I don't think that the Arthurian themes really fit in with the DA other than maybe the Fall of Caliban with Luther being Lancelot. 

[Aegnor]

Or him being Satan to the Lion's God. Or Judas to his Jesus. Or Saruman to his Gandalf. Or the Tessio to the Lion's Micharl Corleone. Or closer to home, the Horus to the Lion as Emperor.

 

The idea of a great leader being betrayed by one of those closest to him is a pretty common trope. By itself Luther betraying the Lion doesn't really equate to him being Lancelot. In fact, in some ways Luther is closer to Arthur with the Lion as Mordred or *maybe* Lancelot.

[Plague Angel]

In fact, in some ways Luther is closer to Arthur with the Lion as Mordred or *maybe* Lancelot.

Do elaborate!

[djgoldsmith]

To be honest, I have always quite enjoyed Gav's books.

 

Yes, I agree that some of his characters do seem to have a habit of being hit with the idiot stick in the name of plot (sammiel, corax, belial). But overall it's good to see the dark angels getting some love. While others end up being just as awesome as they were in my own imagination.

 

I suppose it's difficult for anyone to turn a 10 line "sidebar" from the rule book into a 100+ page novel and please thousands of fans each with their own views and preconseptions.

[Aegnor]

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, in some ways Luther is closer to Arthur with the Lion as Mordred or *maybe* Lancelot.

Do elaborate!

Son of the Forest (representing a dark unknowable primal world inimical to man)/Son of Morgan Le Fay (when he isn't the son of Morgause), a witch who represents dark unknowable primal powers inimical to man. Both tainted by their 'dark' conception (from forest or witch) with flaws that lead to the later tragedy.

 

In some ways Luther is more of the Arthur figure in terms of being the original hero who founded the Order, founded on the principles of meritocracy, and built its great fortress. The Lion, his 'son' (that he shared parentage of with a dark elemental force) eventually usurped his position as king and turned against Luther.

 

In other ways it doesn't work. In some versions of the legend, Arthur left Mordred in charge of Wales while he left to go fight a war in the wider world, which fits with the Lion being Arthur. In another take, Luther could be Arthur and the Lion could be Lancelot - the unapproachable paragon of knightly might who carries a flaw in his personality that will lead to conflict with Arthur/Luther. On the other hand, Luther's name could be a reference to Uther Pendragon, and his role as Arthur/Luther's father.

 

Basically, it's a story that may draw some of it's inspiration, amongat other sources, from the legend of Arthur, which itself has many many different versions, so drawing simple analogies from a character from Arthurian legend to the Dark Angels is going to fraught.

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

Luther didn't found The Order, it was already very well established when he found Jonson. Luther is only regarded as the greatest man of his time on Caliban, usurped by Jonson. Like every great hero on every world, the Primarchs usurped them. Some died, some were killed as they fought the Primarch, some stayed with the Primarch, and one - Luther - betrayed his lord. It was Jonson who started the great crusade against the Beasts of Caliban, to rid the world of the danger once and for all and to save humanity from the darkness. To lead them into a new golden age. Luther bought into that vision and stood with him for a long time, until jealousy ate away at him.

 

The links with the Arthurian legend lean, imo, more towards Jonsons representing Arthur, but I don't know if Luther is Mordred or not. 

 

Ultimately, the tale of Jonson and Lutheris the heresy writ small, the classic tale of brother v brother, of jealousy v loyalty.

 

EDIT: On another note, I totally agree with you on that the inspiration is small and we should not read too much into it.

[Aegnor]

Thank you Bohemond. You're quite right that Luther didn't found the Order - apologies for my oversight. In some ways though the Order was the house that Luther built - it was under his leadership (whether or not he was Grand Master at the time) that it rose to prominence. But I accept your point.

 

Edit: also should stress that me equating the Lion with Mordred is not meant to be an attack or labelling the Lion as a traitor. There are nuances, and while Mordred's treachery might have been deliberate as a result of inherited hate and his incestuous character, the Lion's usurping of Luther was largely unconscious and his 'betrayal' has been portrayed as the result of trust issues/insecurity.

[Gillyfish]

I will be interested to see where Gav takes the story and the Chapter. I think his style of writing often has characters largely defined by deed than description, which is not necessarily a bad thing. So I am looking forward to it.

 

The knightly aspect has always been a part of the DA background, just as it has always been part of the general background of space marines. We lost ground in 4th edition to the Black Templars as GW were looking to make the two Chapters more distinct. In fact, the designer's notes for the BT Codex back then stated that they had been particularly conscious about cross-over. fast forward to the current edition and you get a lot more of the medieval knightly imagery added back in, particularly through Deathwing Knights and Black Knights. But heraldry was there in the previous editions.

 

Other posters have already pointed out that the DA are more clsoely aligned with the popular image of knights than the historical reality, but that still leaves room for darkness. Touching briefly on the Arthurian scheme too, some of the early tales have Arthur going to war with the Romans and are pretty dark in nature to modern eyes in terms of what the knights got up to. They weren't necessarily very pleasant, but it was the popular fiction of its day, so it catered to the tastes of the gentry and nobles who would have heard it. We shouldn't necessarily read too much into it.

[Phoebus]

Aegnor,

Speaking for myself, I think there is only really one trope/theme that the Dark Angels background borrows from the Arthurian mythos: the use of the Lion as the Once and Future King. Unlike the more generic influences from other sources (e.g., the brothers of the Order are knights, they hunt beasts, etc.), this theme is very specific: the Lion was wounded unto death, was whisked away, and is sleeping until he will be needed again. As such, while I do agree with your argument the main (that you can't really draw analogies between the Dark Angels and the Arthurian mythos), I was surprised you cited more tenuous links than this obvious one.

Personally, and this is kind of going off into a side-topic, I don't think Luther is so much a good or original character so much as he is defined by an original fate. Luther is what Alexander the Great would have become if the Lion showed up, been made king of Macedon, and led the invasion of Asia. Or what may have happened to Julius Caesar had the Lion arrived around the time of the Second Triumvirate. So on, so forth.

Could Luther have united Caliban (as Mike Lee hyperbolically implies in Fallen Angels)? Who knows? The point is that the ambitions of a charismatic, insightful, intelligent, and powerful hero were nipped in the bud.

EDIT: having read this post, I re-worded a sentence so it doesn't come off as rude!

[Aegnor]

Phoebus - you're quite right about the Lion being taken away to rest until he was needed again. Wasn't being intentionally selective, just forgot about that when I was posting (need to go away and prepare my thoughts in a more organised way!).