Abnett's Rout vs. King's Space Vikings

[b1soul]

Does anyone prefer King's Wolves to Abnett's? 

 

I didn't like Prospero Burns at first...but I'm starting to appreciate more and more what Abnett has done for the sixth legion. No disrespect to King but I by far prefer the Vlka Fenryka [the Folk of Fenris?] to happy-go-lucky alcohol-guzzling Space Vikings.   

 

No, I am not a fan of SW exceptionalism, but apart from the in-universe suggestions of exceptionalism, Prospero Burns is one of the best legion-building novels of series (I suppose in the case of Prospero Burns, it's legion-renovating)     

[Daddywarcrimes]

I read Bill King's Space Wolf books back in college and hated every moment of them. I thought 40k deserved better. Now, we have Phil Kelly's WolfWolfWolf, and I'm afraid King's Space Wolves are exactly what 40k deserves. Abnett's take on the legion is much more in line with the far less cartoonish 30k.

[Balthamal]

Vlka Fenryka hands down. In fairness to Bill King, he wrote those books back in the earliest days of Black Library and they were only intended as a bit of filler for one of the more popular characters. Now that you've got NYT best-sellers churning out material, those old books just don't stand up in any meaningful way

[Leif Bearclaw]

They both have their advantages really.

 

I do rather like Abnett's 30k stuff. The VI have the strongest different vibe of all the Loyalists from their 40k descendants I'm aware of, which is cool. I also like how in both settings, the Wolves are almost a Legion/Chapter out of time, with their 30k attitude being more suited to m41, while their 40k approach is at lot closer to the ideals of the Crusade era than (most of) the rest of the Imperium. It's also done wonders in explaining Prospero, turning what was an incomprehensible and mad decision by the Emperor into a true tragedy.

 

On the other hand, I also like the more upbeat tone of the Ragnar books. The contrast is striking, and I'd like to see more stories like them, somewhat upbeat 40k stories from someone that isn't Sandy Mitchell, the last couple of editions having given me a fair does of Darkness Induced Audience Apathy. The Wolves manage to come across as more human and humanitarian, which made for a good contrast with how other Astartes act, as well as fitting the 40k Wolves' actions as one of the 'nicest' Astartes Chapters.

 

The portrayal I liked less was Wraight's one in Blood of Asaheim (although I haven't finished the book yet). While far from terrible, the whole 'overstretched and tired' aspect doesn't sit right with me. Not only does it look like more of the 'Time of Ending' (which I am really not a fan of) shtick creeping out of the rulebook fluff, it also makes me wonder why we haven't seen other Marines so run down?

[RapatoR]

Well, I dig both versions. I was always fond of space drunkards, but I am a Slav.

[A D-B]

A subject amongst those dearest to my heart. 

 

I think there'll come a time when it'll be more than "X vs. Y" and more a matter of a half-dozen (and hopefully more) interpretations to choose from. The Forge World treatment will be different, f'rex, and Graham's mentioned doing some stuff with them in the future. Chris has done a load with them, obviously, and looks set to do more. I've written two Space Wolf... things... recently, and my Wolves aren't much like Dan's or Bill's, either. 

[b1soul]

Yes...but I hope consistency isn't thrown out the window

 

I understand the "different approaches from different angles" philosophy, i.e. different situations bring different qualities out of the same character or legion. That sort of variety I like...when different authours choose to explore/highlight different characteristics of a multi-dimensional legion by placing that legion in different situations. 

 

Take Leman Russ for example. I'm sure he's capable of a wide range of emotions and personality traits. In situation A, certain qualities of his might come to the fore. In situation B, other qualities of his might come to the fore. He might be merciful in one situation but totally ruthless in another. Different situations...or he might be ruthless in a certain situation, but something happens to change his views. When he encounters a very similar situation later on, he might be more merciful. That's called character growth. 

 

What I don't like is when every authour is writing a completely different legion, completely disregarding the earlier on-point work of other authours. I'd appreciate if Leman Russ doesn't read like a completely different character in novels by different authours. I hope for at least some in-universe explanation if there's a radical departure.  

 

I'm totally down for different takes of the same legion/character. I'm less enthused when different authours write radically different legions/characters who only happen to share the same name. It smacks of laziness, especially when the authours have access to each other and each other's works.

 

TLDR version: I'd like to see the examination of a core of consistency from different angles.  

[battle captain corpus]

Frankly I loved the Ragnar series and all the recent incarnations.

 

Chris Wraight's exquisite M33 novel , Battle for the Fang and the seriously good Blood of Asaheim, are pretty much as wolftastic as I could want.

What I particularly liked was reading Prosperous Burns immediately followed by Battle for the Fang. The simple way that Chris Wraight explores how even after 2000 years the Wolves are already losing their ways etc is sublime. :)

 

Will be very interested to see your take on the Wolves A D-B, see what facets you explore with them.

 

BCC

[A D-B]

Yes...but I hope consistency isn't thrown out the window

 

I understand the "different approaches from different angles" philosophy, i.e. different situations bring different qualities out of the same character or legion. That sort of variety I like...when different authours choose to explore/highlight different characteristics of a multi-dimensional legion by placing that legion in different situations. 

 

Take Leman Russ for example. I'm sure he's capable of a wide range of emotions and personality traits. In situation A, certain qualities of his might come to the fore. In situation B, other qualities of his might come to the fore. He might be merciful in one situation but totally ruthless in another. Different situations...or he might be ruthless in a certain situation, but something happens to change his views. When he encounters a very similar situation later on, he might be more merciful. That's called character growth. 

 

What I don't like is when every authour is writing a completely different legion, completely disregarding the earlier on-point work of other authours. I'd appreciate if Leman Russ doesn't read like a completely different character in novels by different authours. I hope for at least some in-universe explanation if there's a radical departure.  

 

I'm totally down for different takes of the same legion/character. I'm less enthused when different authours write radically different legions/characters who only happen to share the same name. It smacks of laziness.   

 

EDIT: I should add, I liked Prospero Burns immensely, and the first few Chapters were savagely close to how I'd always imagined Fenris. I'm not advocating ignoring anything. And I like consistency. I'm just saying "Consider the following...:"

 

Consistency is always something worth striving for, no argument there. It's also worth bearing in mind that there are many, many sources to draw from, and none are righter than any other. Madness lies that way: what are you being consistent to? Which one should you honour more? If one author chooses to follow the vibe of older Space Wolf lore rather than Dan's, that's not a bad thing. Similarly, if another chooses to follow Dan's rather than Bill King's, then that's all good, too. You'll always get some people that claim an interpretation went too far, whether it did or not, because it's about as subjective a concept as you can get.

 

It's a fine line, though. One man's "different take" is another man's "radically different Legion". And you yourself just started a thread praising an entirely different interpretation of a Legion from before. You can attribute that to time shift, but that's not really true - Dan's said publically more than once that his Wolves are so different because he didn't really like the Space Wolves as they were. He was well within his right to change them, insofar as anyone can view the same thing through a different lens. But there's more to it than being bound to any one author. F'rex, do you think the Forge World treatment will be the same as Dan's? Unlikely. 

 

I think the best way is to mix in a lot of what came before with your own perceptions, rather than ignore anything. I'd never ignore Dan's angle, or the forthcoming Forge World stuff, or even Bill King's old work. But I'm not bound to it, especially not the stuff I don't like all that much, much like Dan was free to disregard almost all of it. Same with Graham, Chris, and whoever else touches the Wolves.

[Balthamal]

A subject amongst those dearest to my heart.

I think there'll come a time when it'll be more than "X vs. Y" and more a matter of a half-dozen (and hopefully more) interpretations to choose from. The Forge World treatment will be different, f'rex, and Graham's mentioned doing some stuff with them in the future. Chris has done a load with them, obviously, and looks set to do more. I've written two Space Wolf... things... recently, and my Wolves aren't much like Dan's or Bill's, either.

Why? Why must you give us hope? Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment after all....

On a more serious note, is it more in line with your wolves from the Emperor's Gift?

Frankly I loved the Ragnar series and all the recent incarnations.

Chris Wraight's exquisite M33 novel , Battle for the Fang and the seriously good Blood of Asaheim, are pretty much as wolftastic as I could want.

What I particularly liked was reading Prosperous Burns immediately followed by Battle for the Fang. The simple way that Chris Wraight explores how even after 2000 years the Wolves are already losing their ways etc is sublime.

Will be very interested to see your take on the Wolves A D-B, see what facets you explore with them.

BCC

I agree with you on Chris Wraight's work. What most impressed me was his ability to take an incarnation already laid down, ie Prospero Burns, and build on it. The scenes featuring the Wolves in Scars are pitched to perfection whilst Battle of the Fang shows that even though the Wolves were the least changed between 30k and 40, there are changes and an eventual degradation.

Compare that to the poor Dark Angels who had 4 different authors for their first 4 appearances and there was so little consistency between them. Thankfully everything that's come afterwards appears to be sticking to the track laid down by Savage Weapons, which imo, is a very good thing.

[A D-B]

 

A subject amongst those dearest to my heart. 

 

I think there'll come a time when it'll be more than "X vs. Y" and more a matter of a half-dozen (and hopefully more) interpretations to choose from. The Forge World treatment will be different, f'rex, and Graham's mentioned doing some stuff with them in the future. Chris has done a load with them, obviously, and looks set to do more. I've written two Space Wolf... things... recently, and my Wolves aren't much like Dan's or Bill's, either. 

 

Why? Why must you give us hope? Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment after all....

 

On a more serious note, is it more in line with your wolves from the Emperor's Gift?

 

 

Nope. That was a scarce glance at a couple of Wolves from the outside, from the POV of characters that were incapable of understanding them. Nothing like that.

[Balthamal]

 

 

A subject amongst those dearest to my heart. 

 

I think there'll come a time when it'll be more than "X vs. Y" and more a matter of a half-dozen (and hopefully more) interpretations to choose from. The Forge World treatment will be different, f'rex, and Graham's mentioned doing some stuff with them in the future. Chris has done a load with them, obviously, and looks set to do more. I've written two Space Wolf... things... recently, and my Wolves aren't much like Dan's or Bill's, either. 

 

Why? Why must you give us hope? Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment after all....

 

On a more serious note, is it more in line with your wolves from the Emperor's Gift?

 

 

Nope. That was a scarce glance at a couple of Wolves from the outside, from the POV of characters that were incapable of understanding them. Nothing like that.

 

 

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention.

 

Are you allowed to tell us when said piece on moderately famous wolf lord shall see the light of day? Already climbing the walls waiting for the Talon of Horus

[Vesper]

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention.

 

Are you allowed to tell us when said piece on moderately famous wolf lord shall see the light of day? Already climbing the walls waiting for the Talon of Horus

 

Ideed.

[Aegnor]

I liked both and think they both have their merits. I don't see them as mutually exclusive in terms of my positive regard.

 

Think about stories about a real life military institution. Different stories are going to emphasise different aspects and characterise their subjects in different ways. Some will be darker stories with characters whose angsts are important to the story. Others will feature people who are almost blithe to their surroundings and focus on the derring do that went on. Both can be truthful. And even if they contradict each other, that's par for the course in any situation where two people describe an event or circumstance as they perceive it to be.

[b1soul]

 

I think the best way is to mix in a lot of what came before with your own perceptions, rather than ignore anything. I'd never ignore Dan's angle, or the forthcoming Forge World stuff, or even Bill King's old work. But I'm not bound to it, especially not the stuff I don't like all that much, much like Dan was free to disregard almost all of it. Same with Graham, Chris, and whoever else touches the Wolves.

 

 

I'd argue that other HH authours should not depart too far from Prospero Burns in their HH novels about the Wolves without proper in-universe justification. I don't think a core of consistency is too much to ask of novels in the same series. I'm totally for explorations of the different aspects of the same legion if you will. Legions and characters should be multi-dimensional. I get that...but if you have a bunch of authours who present fundamentally different interpretations of the same subject, well...that way lies madness too  

 

Dan didn't like King's portrayal. I'll take your word for it. The discepancy could be attributed to passage of time...or the discrepancy could be treated as a retcon. Even so, there is a very large in-universe time lapse (30K and 40K) and quite a bit of a real world time lapse (between the publications of King's work and Abnett's PB). That inconsistency is in my minde, more justifiable/"forgiveable". 

 

If an authour were to reintroduce a King-style portrayal of the Wolves into the current HH series (in which PB pretty much establishes the 30K Wolves), I would find that less justifiable and far more jarring.  

 

Please keep in mind that this is all my opinion and I'm not trying to tell any authour what to do. 

[Augustus]

I don't mind different portrayals of legions. Prospero Burns was through the eyes of a man. Thousand sons through the eyes if Ahriman. It's really interesting to me to see how narrative is shaped via perspective. Who's perspective is closest to the truth? That said, IF DONE RIGHT.

 

Disclaimer: just watched Rashamon :D

[A D-B]

 

 

I think the best way is to mix in a lot of what came before with your own perceptions, rather than ignore anything. I'd never ignore Dan's angle, or the forthcoming Forge World stuff, or even Bill King's old work. But I'm not bound to it, especially not the stuff I don't like all that much, much like Dan was free to disregard almost all of it. Same with Graham, Chris, and whoever else touches the Wolves.

 

 

I'd argue that other HH authours should not depart too far from Prospero Burns in their HH novels about the Wolves without proper in-universe justification. I don't think a core of consistency is too much to ask of novels in the same series. I'm totally for explorations of the different aspects of the same legion if you will. Legions and characters should be multi-dimensional. I get that...but if you have a bunch of authours who present fundamentally different interpretations of the same subject, well...that way lies madness too  

 

Dan didn't like King's portrayal. I'll take your word for it. The discepancy could be attributed to passage of time...or the discrepancy could be treated as a retcon. Even so, there is a very large in-universe time lapse (30K and 40K) and quite a bit of a real world time lapse (between the publications of King's work and Abnett's PB). That inconsistency is in my minde, more justifiable/"forgiveable". 

 

If an authour were to reintroduce a King-style portrayal of the Wolves into the current HH series (in which PB pretty much establishes the 30K Wolves), I would find that less justifiable and far more jarring.  

 

Please keep in mind that this is all my opinion and I'm not trying to tell any authour what to do. 

 

 

You don't need to take my word for it; Dan's said it plenty, even in video interviews on YouTube. He didn't like the Vikings in Space vibe when it was played that straight and unsubtle, which is totally fair.

 

But I think we're largely agreeing, here. I agree that King-style Wolves would be pretty shocking at this stage.

 

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that unless you're wildly inconsistent, most people won't even notice. Not because they're idiots, but because the brain fills in the blanks. As an example, the Forge World treatment may look very little like Prospero Burns, with completely different Legion structure and units, but if it uses the same words once in a while and makes allusions to the Wolves as the Emperor's executioners, then that's that - it'll largely be considered entirely faithful.

 

Apart from huuuuge changes, it's only when one of the authors breaks it down step by step and draws attention to it that minor divergences look more major than they are. But if you cleave adamantly closely to Prospero Burns, you're then going against older classic lore and stuff like Collected Visions, which forms one of the cores of the IP. You've got to balance it all, as well as show your own take. Dan's Wolves are much closer to normal Space Marines who feign a certain barbarity. That's cool as balls. But you're going to get interpretations that go back to the Space Wolves as barbarians-turned-into-Space-Marines first and foremost, and not just from one person's outlook. Prospero Burns brought some excellent maturity to the Space Wolves, but it's not the be-all and end-all of Wolf lore. It actively contradicts whole mountains of it, in fact. And a lot of people like the Vikings vibe. Just not as unsubtly as it was done several editions ago.

 

Look at Leman Russ, though. There's practically nothing to go on, even with Prospero Burns. He's barely in it, which was a great narrative choice, but there's not much to go on or worry about adhering to.

 

I feel like I'm on safe ground as Dan and I have always agreed on how we see the Wolves, even though I've got a lot more love for the Slavic, Celtic, and Norse elements in their older lore, and I like their Collected Visions angle. (A lot of that comes from the amount of European History research I've done for various projects over the years, and the amount of historical fiction I read). Ultimately, I like Vikings in Space, albeit toned down from 11 to about 5 or 6 on the subtlety scale. But I'm under no illusions that everyone needs to agree with me and Dan, either. He's shown how he sees the Wolves. Alan will show how he sees them. Graham and Chris will show how they see them. I'll show how I see them. The truth is somewhere in the middle, or however you see them instead.

 

Consistency is good. Hitting key notes and themes is good. Feeling bound to what's come before is bad. You'd never have had Dan's Wolves if we were bound to what came before. My Dark Angel stuff had literally nothing to do with the previous HH Dark Angel stuff, in tone or theme or even the characters used, and for better or worse that's probably my most popular story, often cited as being true to the Dark Angels even if it wasn't bound to the stuff that had come earlier in the series. My Word Bearers were very little like Ant Reynolds' Word Bearers, but I was careful not to try and contradict him, too.

 

So there's room for any angle, here.

[Dantay VI]

I find it hard to compare Dan Abnett's portrayal of the Space Wolves to Bill King's. Partly because of the gulf of time between the books being written and the difference in the amount of lore that was available to both writers.

 

There wasn't all that much lore When Bill King wrote his books, for example Space Wolf, approaches the recruitment of Ragnar as if it were a codex chapter and has him as a scout, whereas shortly after tat the codex stated that Space Wolves start out as Blood Claws etc, also I don't think Bill King wrote all the Space Wolf series, maybe only the first 3 before Lee Lightner took over and he managed to keep it fairly consistent with what came before.

I always viewed the Space Wolves series as a light or kids version to be truthful as there was very little to make you think about where things were going.

 

I have yet to read Blood of Asaheim, so I cant comment, but I really enjoyed Chris Wraight's work in Battle of the Fang and it along with Dan Abnett's book, Prospero Burns, as they are far more character driven and you can see a bit of development there and it helps change peoples perceptions of who the Space Wolves are. Snippets such as from either Angron or Butchers nails when Angron recites the story of when the World Eaters and the Space Wolves clashed, and he bested Russ, but in the end would have lost the wider battle, shows how much they aren't the slavering savages they are sometimes considered to be.

 

I also really enjoyed the Space Wolves is Emperors gift, I still chuckle over the sections where Bjorn gets frustrated with everyone bowing to him, the character development has been astounding (I also liked the wee link up with the Ravenor books and the overall writing which again let you see through the characters eyes and try to ). 

 

I would hope that the future Space Wolves novels can use the recent book such as a core from which to grow things in ways which future authors see fit.

 

To Leif Bearclaw, what do you mean by the Space Wolves being run down I am very curious about this.

 

I hope that didnt come across as nonsensical and garbled.

[tdemayo]

Does anyone prefer King's Wolves to Abnett's? 

 

I didn't like Prospero Burns at first...but I'm starting to appreciate more and more what Abnett has done for the sixth legion. No disrespect to King but I by far prefer the Vlka Fenryka [the Folk of Fenris?] to happy-go-lucky alcohol-guzzling Space Vikings.   

 

No, I am not a fan of SW exceptionalism, but apart from the in-universe suggestions of exceptionalism, Prospero Burns is one of the best legion-building novels of series (I suppose in the case of Prospero Burns, it's legion-renovating)

 

I enjoyed _Prosper Burns_ immensely. The wolves in it just felt right to me, culturally and linguistically. They were the real focus of the book - a kind of an ethnographic cross-section of Fenris, a traveler's tale. I thought it was an example of Abnett doing what he does best: a side story that approaches the main events from a tangential angle, and a viewpoint from a person below and outside. I'm a medieval historian by trade, with a strong side interest in the Viking Age. I read a lot of Icelandic sagas and other Norse material, and Abnett's wolves had exactly the right attitude and society. But I also thought his reimagining for 30k differentiated the 30k wolves from the 40k wolves in subtle but interesting ways. He incorporated IIRC elements from older Germanic cultures and languages or elements that felt just a little off, or just a little archaic, compared to the Viking age. So if the 40k wolves are standard Vikings, the 30k wolves contain elements that suggest their role as precursors. Anyway, I enjoyed touring with the Wolves enough that the elements of the book that drive other people crazy - like the executioners thing - just sort of slid off me. Visit the wolves, become their skald: that was just pure wish fulfillment for me.

 

I also remember King's Ragnar series fondly. The first book stands out in my mind whenever I think about Space Marine training and recruitment. I also quite liked the one set on Terra, which is a place rarely visited in 40k fiction. (Unlike 30k Terra.). You can also tell, on a close reading of Ragnar and Gottrek, that King knows his sagas pretty well. How much of the original synthesis of the Space Wolves is his? On the negative side, reading King always gave me a slight headache - something about the prose.

 

I had mixed reactions to Wraight's two forays into Wolfdom. I find all of his writing to be technically quite good, but I have had uneven luck in connecting emotionally to his characters. So I liked the portrayal of Fenris in the Battle of the Fang, and I thought he did an excellent job bridging the gap between 30k and 40k. I'd like to return to that era in other, "historical" 40k novels. I thought he captured the Wolfish attitude well. But I just never connected with any of the protagonists. I liked Blood of Asaheim's characters more, and felt more empathy for them. I rather enjoyed the "time of ending" elements to the novel - the feeling of pressure on the Imperium. I could not tell from either novel whether Wraight has read much Icelandic material - he does not seem to be making any sort of new, original synthesis from the Medieval source material like King or Abnett.

 

I have not read others of the more recent Wolf offerings.

[Honda]

I like the idea that there are multiple perspectives on any given subject. In my mind that is what adds a note of realism to the subjects. Think about this, if an independent chronicler pulled 10 people from your sphere of influence at random to talk about you, would they all say the same thing?

 

Not likely.

 

So the different perspectives allow for the broadening of the canvas and those that appreciate the "art" can focus on the area that appeals to them the most.

 

I've only read Prospero and Abyss, but have anecdotal knowledge of King's stuff. In general, Abnett's work really spoke to me. It was an unusual perspective on a chapter and something that will carry forward regardless of what follows. That book made me want to start an army.

 

Now, not trying to blow smoke up ADB's kilt, but I think people feel the same way about the First Heretic and Betrayer. Whether someone liked those chapters or not, those portrayals stirred something inside. Same with Graham's Fulgrim.

 

And that is what I consider a successful treatment of a chapter. If the author causes one to lift something out of the words (even if it is an intense, irrational hatred for Erebus :) ), then that perspective "worked".

 

I think that's all we ought to really ask for.

[Leif Bearclaw]

A subject amongst those dearest to my heart.

I think there'll come a time when it'll be more than "X vs. Y" and more a matter of a half-dozen (and hopefully more) interpretations to choose from. The Forge World treatment will be different, f'rex, and Graham's mentioned doing some stuff with them in the future. Chris has done a load with them, obviously, and looks set to do more. I've written two Space Wolf... things... recently, and my Wolves aren't much like Dan's or Bill's, either.

Why? Why must you give us hope? Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment after all....

On a more serious note, is it more in line with your wolves from the Emperor's Gift?

Nope. That was a scarce glance at a couple of Wolves from the outside, from the POV of characters that were incapable of understanding them. Nothing like that.

That makes me somewhat sad. I read The Emperor's Gift over the weekend and (aside form my beef with the direction of the more recent GK fluff), thought it was brilliant. Probably my favourite book of yours (but that may be due it it having Space Wolves in ). I really wanted to see more of the Logan portrayed in that book, he came across like a complete boss.

I find it hard to compare Dan Abnett's portrayal of the Space Wolves to Bill King's. Partly because of the gulf of time between the books being written and the difference in the amount of lore that was available to both writers.

There wasn't all that much lore When Bill King wrote his books, for example Space Wolf, approaches the recruitment of Ragnar as if it were a codex chapter and has him as a scout, whereas shortly after tat the codex stated that Space Wolves start out as Blood Claws etc, also I don't think Bill King wrote all the Space Wolf series, maybe only the first 3 before Lee Lightner took over and he managed to keep it fairly consistent with what came before.

I always viewed the Space Wolves series as a light or kids version to be truthful as there was very little to make you think about where things were going.

I have yet to read Blood of Asaheim, so I cant comment, but I really enjoyed Chris Wraight's work in Battle of the Fang and it along with Dan Abnett's book, Prospero Burns, as they are far more character driven and you can see a bit of development there and it helps change peoples perceptions of who the Space Wolves are. Snippets such as from either Angron or Butchers nails when Angron recites the story of when the World Eaters and the Space Wolves clashed, and he bested Russ, but in the end would have lost the wider battle, shows how much they aren't the slavering savages they are sometimes considered to be.

I also really enjoyed the Space Wolves is Emperors gift, I still chuckle over the sections where Bjorn gets frustrated with everyone bowing to him, the character development has been astounding (I also liked the wee link up with the Ravenor books and the overall writing which again let you see through the characters eyes and try to ).

I would hope that the future Space Wolves novels can use the recent book such as a core from which to grow things in ways which future authors see fit.

To Leif Bearclaw, what do you mean by the Space Wolves being run down I am very curious about this.

I hope that didnt come across as nonsensical and garbled.

As for Space Wolf, in my copy at least Ragnar is never a scout, once he completes his initiation he definitely has Power Armour and is in the Blood Claws.

Blood of Asaheim makes a point that the Wolves (or Ragnar's company at least) is being run ragged with constant deployments. The protagonist pack is said to have been on almost constant deployment, without noteworthy down time for about a century. This is actually the cause of some of the strife in the novel, as they're deployed again without enough time for a new recruit and a returning Deathwatch marine to integrate into the pack properly. It's said that a major reason for this is that the Wolves have been pushing out their sphere of influence to take the slack of other Astartes Chapters, which are reducing the areas they are pledged to defend. While this is characterful, I don't like the overall picture it paints, especially given that we haven't seen this kind of fatigue in other Chapters.

[Chaeron]

Chris Wraight's portrayals recently have also been notable. Especially the stench...

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I've been trying to type this post for three hours whilst I should be working, so I'm going to keep it succinct this time:

 

King's Wolves are my first in-universe discovery of them and as such will always hold a certain place in my heart but the Crusade/Heresy-era Rout is what I would want the Wolves to be - it captures a character, mostly, that is unique and uniform but diverse.

[b1soul]

 

He incorporated IIRC elements from older Germanic cultures and languages or elements that felt just a little off, or just a little archaic, compared to the Viking age. So if the 40k wolves are standard Vikings, the 30k wolves contain elements that suggest their role as precursors.

 

I believe the Viking Age refers to Iron Age Scandinavia (specifically the Dark Ages)

 

The 30K Wolves seem to incorporate elements of perhaps Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavia? I'm not sure...but their culture didn't feel purely "Viking"

 

 

I like the idea that there are multiple perspectives on any given subject. In my mind that is what adds a note of realism to the subjects. Think about this, if an independent chronicler pulled 10 people from your sphere of influence at random to talk about you, would they all say the same thing?

 

Thing is...a lot of the 40K novels are not written as in-universe records. Even if they were, my point still stands...yes, multiple chroniclers would have different views on the same subject matter. However, if multiple chroniclers are all observing the same subject matter, there should be a core of consistency absent cases of extreme delusion. On the surface, there might be contradiction, but if the multiple perspectives are done right, intelligent readers should be able to realise how the different choniclers are forming divergent views based on the same subject matter. There shouldn't be sloppy contradiction. Of course, judging the difference between "intelligent" contradiction and "sloppy" contradiction (which smacks of lazy retcons) might be a subjective one. However, I believe I'm pretty good at telling them apart.

 

 

 

 While this is characterful, I don't like the overall picture it paints, especially given that we haven't seen this kind of fatigue in other Chapters.

 

 

Well, isn't that the idea. The 40K Wolves, being the humane, dutiful chapter they are, are carrying the weight of other chapters. That's why other chapters aren't as fatigued.

 

 

 

 

Consistency is good. Hitting key notes and themes is good. Feeling bound to what's come before is bad. You'd never have had Dan's Wolves if we were bound to what came before. My Dark Angel stuff had literally nothing to do with the previous HH Dark Angel stuff, in tone or theme or even the characters used, and for better or worse that's probably my most popular story, often cited as being true to the Dark Angels even if it wasn't bound to the stuff that had come earlier in the series. My Word Bearers were very little like Ant Reynolds' Word Bearers, but I was careful not to try and contradict him, too.

 

So there's room for any angle, here.

 

 

As you've said, we largely agree. Preserving a consistent legion spirit I think is quite good. Especially within the same series and in-universe time frame. I think of Dan's Wolves as either a well-executed retcon, an in-universe precursor to the much later 40K Wolves, or both.

 

I'm sure there is room for your angle in the HH series. Judging by your body of work, you're definitely skilled enough to pull it off. My one disagreement is that I don't really think Abnett's Wolves are normal marines who pretend to be barbarians. In a way, they are barbarians in the way real world Vikings were barbarians (or in the way the Mongols were barbarians).They're just not stereotypical, undisciplined, bloodthirsty barbarians. That's only how they try to portray themselves. The Wolves in reality are quite similar to real world "barbarian" peoples who are often sophisticated but subject to smear campaigns by outsiders. 

 

 Abnett's Wolves are much closer to real world actual Vikings in that other people stereotype them as these unsophisticated, filthy, bloodthirsty, almost bestial primitives. In fact, they're sophisticated beyond the expectations of many people. If anything, I'd say Abnett's Wolves are still Vikings-turned-Space Marines, albeit "subtle", less stereotypical Vikings

[Dantay VI]

Hi T Demayo: Could you point me to a few of these saga's it is something I think I would enjoy

 

Hi Leif: I got the books when they first came out, so that shows how long in the fang I am.

Space Wolf is where his tribe are attacked and beaten by a rival, and in Ragnars death throes he defeats, his rival (name forgotten). Saved by Ranek he is taken to a training camp, where new recruits must prove their worth to become space wolves.He loses a friend to a troll and others go missing during the hard winter possibly to a wulfen. And another after taking the canis helix where Kjel becomes wulfen during the trials. Later they go investigating a cave on Fenris as scouts with their former sargeant and find a tzeentchian cult led by Madox who becomes the main protagonist through the series and they defeat him. He was a scout during this and the ltd ed diorama from the time model shows him in scout armour. Not saying you are wrong, maybe the book got reworked at a later date.

Ah now I understand… In my mind the Space Wolves have always been a chapter in flux? Not sure if that is the right word. They are a chapter alone with no “sons” or protégé chapters to help them take up the slack. They also only recruit from one world too so replenishing losses must be hard.

Also in the fluff from old White Dwarves old codices etc it was always stated that each great companies ultimate loyalty is to Russ & the ll Father and they recognise the Great Wolf as their Alpha. If A Wolf Lord hs a compelling enough reason, he and his company can leave the Fang of their own volition with the Great Wolf’s blessing. If they just leaave he hunts them down as traitors, examples are te Lone Wolves graphic novel or a short story in an old white dwarf where a Wolf Company never returned to the Fang to continue hunting.

So besides taking up the slack of others there are whole reasons for attrition to wear on the Wolves, unlike say the Ultramarines who have upwards of 600 other scion chapters to call upon & could spend 200+ years replenishing their 1^st Company after the first hive fleet struck Macragge.

 

I am guessing that for a writer this is probably what can make the Warhammer universe so exciting, even within the Wolves you have 12 Lords, 12 personalities, different perspectives etc, without considering the break away elements etc.

An example, Krom Dragongaze is considered te most competitive Wolf Lord, Why? Was he a highborn Fenrisian fighting hard to show why he was such, or a lowborn risen up through hard work and trying to overcome an inferiority complex and prove his worth to himself and his ancestors? How does this shape his decisions and his wars?

Bjorn Stormwolf: A big loud bombastic and unsubtle man, but is it a front for someone who has a great intelligence and uses the larger than life alter ego to keep people off balance to whom he really is or maybe he is dealing with self doubt issues and overcompensates.

There is a ton of depth that anyone could explore because we are given just enough to give us a taste of what is out there. So there is plenty for a writer to stretch their legs while sticking to a few core tenets and maintain a consistent identity for the Space Wolves and that no one writer is right or wrong in their portrayal of what the Space Wolves mean for them.

 

Hopefully it will mean exciting times ahead.

 

Hi B1soul, pretty much agree with all you just typed :)