Strong and weak points of BL authors

[Volt]

it wasn't the idea of the sword, it was the execution. fulgrim and his legion went from shallow character to just...more shallow. i didn't believe any of the struggle McNeill tried to tell us was happening. personally found most of the book insipid.

 

weirdly enough I actually didn't hate outcast dead

Well the Emperor's Children are supposed to be petty and shallow. The defining trait of Fulgrim is his vanity.

[Visitor13]

It's possible to write a profound book about a shallow character.

[Visitor13]

I forget, who wrote Siege of Castellax? That was among the most grimdark books I've read in 40k and captured the atmosphere of 40k perfectly.

 

It was  C. L. Werner. He also has a bunch of Warhammer Fantasy books out, including one dedicated to Nurgle and another to Khorne.

[mc warhammer]

not from the IA they weren't. and not in Horus Rising either. you could argue that it was an element of their character, but there was some balance. their dichotomous depiction in HR, brief as it was, had me keen to read fulgrim.

 

vanity is a shallow trait, but i feel that man who fights to bring his world to a golden age of prosperity and who lived in "spartan quarters" must have other traits as well. didn't tarvitz explain to torgaddon that his primarch's ideal of perfection was mistaken for vanity outside of the legion but was truly about purity? that was interesting. mcniell's perfect perfectionists taking their perfect shots in their perfectly perfect armor and hair was perfectly silly.

 

i don't doubt that a good book can be written about shallow characters, but fulgrim wasn't it. you could see each page straining for depth and pathos so much that it made it even clearer how badly it was failing. he applies shallow ideas, themes and characterization across his novels, not just fulgrim.

[Visitor13]

Right, I wasn't saying "Fulgrim" was a profound book, quite the opposite actually, I was responding to Volt's post above mine. Admittedly I haven't read the book, but I know that a lot of people found it shallow, and my own experience with McNeil's writing suggests that I would likely share their opinion.

[Phoebus]

I wasn't a fan of Fulgrim. You didn't miss much, Visitor13.

 

I thought much of what it tried to convey in the backdrop - Fulgrim's feelings about art, for instance - was contrived. It was, at best, a play on stereotypes and caricatures related to the art world (and more specifically ideas related to taste, critique, etc.).

 

The war against the Laer was interesting, but the battle on Isstvan V was unimaginatively told. Largely off-hand mentions of artillery and Titans aside, one would have been hard-pressed to distinguish it from a Warhammer Fantasy battle.

 

The story as a whole was both predictable (with the exception of the encounter with the Eldar) and forgettable (with the exception of Fulgrim's agonized realization of just what he was doing right before he slew Ferrus Manus). As a means to set up a bunch of hooks for short stories and other products (of higher quality, generally speaking), it succeeded. As the setting for arguably the most infamous battle of the Heresy (other than the Siege of Terra, of course), it failed utterly. Isstvan V needed its own novel, much like Isstvan III had Galaxy in Flames.

 

Fulgrim was, unfortunately, a rude awakening to the idea that the hitherto-excellent Horus Heresy series could not keep up that level of quality forever. I can't say much good about it.

[Loesh]

Fulgrim, The Reflection Crack'd, etc I pretty much liked because they were Emperors Children books, not because I felt he did any particularly good or interesting characterization. Indeed, because a character is vain isn't an excuse to make them shallow, you need to provide a perspective where their fall seems justified from the Emperors Children point of view.

 

I'd actually like to see ADB write a Emperors Children novel to that effect, but I don't think it'd ever happen.  Which is funny because looking at my post from the 25th, I realize my opinion on the subject has completely reversed after reading the Talon of Horus all the way through, where Fulgrim now looks substantially worse to me now.

[mc warhammer]

i'd love ADB to have a crack (the 5 seconds of fulgrim in prince of crows beat out the entirety of "fulgrim" the novel). abnett too for his depiction of the character in "prospero burns".

[SteelPaladin]

 

McNeill is such an interesting author. He has done some of my very favorite BL books of all time, and also some of the very worst.

 

Storm of Iron, A Thousand Sons, Mechanicum, Priests of Mars, I rate all of these in the top tier of BL books. Then he goes and writes stuff like the Ultramarines series, False Gods, and Fulgrim... 

 

It almost reminds me of Stephen King, who can be a fantastic author, but who writes so much that not all of it can be gold. 

What's wrong with Fulgrim? In that book McNeil actually managed to do the fall of a Traitor Primarch fairly well. Till it was fethed up by a different author.

 

LIke all of the books by McNeill that I'm not that fond of, Fulgrim has a bunch of very interesting ideas, but the execution leaves something to be desired. 

 

I definitely seem to be more lenient on McNeill than some(I thought The Outcast Dead was pretty awesome, for example), but Fulgrim just struck me as a major missed opportunity. 

[Loesh]

Agreed, and usually i'm not quite as hard on his storytelling as some people. For example, I don't think Lucius defeat to Sharrowkyn was quite as bad as some people because of what happens later when he tries to regain his pride in Eternal Blade. But I do however still consider it, essentially, damage control for how badly he mishandled the character.

[mc warhammer]

I think that might be my problem with a lot of his work- there's a lot of potential and enough good stuff within that it ends up disappointing me more than a novel by a BL author who's just 100% bad.

[Phoebus]

Agreed, and usually i'm not quite as hard on his storytelling as some people. For example, I don't think Lucius defeat to Sharrowkyn was quite as bad as some people because of what happens later when he tries to regain his pride in Eternal Blade. But I do however still consider it, essentially, damage control for how badly he mishandled the character.

 

My issue with the Lucius/Sharrowkyn bit had nothing to do with the former of the two losing.  Rather, I just don't like Sharrowkyn, period.  I personally deeply dislike characters without depth or personality other than their prowess in battle.  Sharrowkyn is little more than that guy who is amazing at being stealthy, amazing at being a sniper, and amazing at fighting with swords.  I struggle to recall a time when he does something more meaningful than dispatching enemies.

 

By contrast, Lucius was one of the bright spots of the Emperor's Children.  Though driven to perfection, he was hardly flawless.  Arrogant, he was prone to underestimating his foes and paid the price against Gavriel Loken.  He was not so full of himself, however, to be above self-loathing, and this translated to him mutilating his own features as an insane reaction to his features being marred.  Furthermore, his high estimation of himself was ironically not reciprocated by the elements of his legion loyal to Fulgrim, and it took a much more personal betrayal for him to be "taken in" during Isstvan III.  Lucius is probably the only interesting character study of the Emperor's Children that I can think of, and the only one that really nails how their kind of mentality would actually translate.

 

As such, it was very frustrating for me to see this rather developed, interesting villain be brought down (however temporarily) by a walking Deus Ex Machina like Sharrowkyn.  With that in mind, I agree 100% with your estimation of "Eternal Blade" being damage control; I feel the same way about the audio drama that tried to explain the bizarre timeline of The Outcast Dead.

[Volt]

 

Agreed, and usually i'm not quite as hard on his storytelling as some people. For example, I don't think Lucius defeat to Sharrowkyn was quite as bad as some people because of what happens later when he tries to regain his pride in Eternal Blade. But I do however still consider it, essentially, damage control for how badly he mishandled the character.

 

My issue with the Lucius/Sharrowkyn bit had nothing to do with the former of the two losing.  Rather, I just don't like Sharrowkyn, period.  I personally deeply dislike characters without depth or personality other than their prowess in battle.  Sharrowkyn is little more than that guy who is amazing at being stealthy, amazing at being a sniper, and amazing at fighting with swords.  I struggle to recall a time when he does something more meaningful than dispatching enemies.

 

By contrast, Lucius was one of the bright spots of the Emperor's Children.  Though driven to perfection, he was hardly flawless.  Arrogant, he was prone to underestimating his foes and paid the price against Gavriel Loken.  He was not so full of himself, however, to be above self-loathing, and this translated to him mutilating his own features as an insane reaction to his features being marred.  Furthermore, his high estimation of himself was ironically not reciprocated by the elements of his legion loyal to Fulgrim, and it took a much more personal betrayal for him to be "taken in" during Isstvan III.  Lucius is probably the only interesting character study of the Emperor's Children that I can think of, and the only one that really nails how their kind of mentality would actually translate.

 

As such, it was very frustrating for me to see this rather developed, interesting villain be brought down (however temporarily) by a walking Deus Ex Machina like Sharrowkyn.  With that in mind, I agree 100% with your estimation of "Eternal Blade" being damage control; I feel the same way about the audio drama that tried to explain the bizarre timeline of The Outcast Dead.

 

My main grief with Sharrowkyn is that he's a straight up Mary Su, rivaling Garro for "really, are we going to be that overpowered?". He feels more like a character made by a Munchkin in Deathwatch with zero personality at all and having hilariously stacked stats to be the player's self insert.

 

The only problem I had with Fulgrim though is the portrayal of Fabius Bile. McNeil had a real chance to do something interesting with the character (as while he's done interesting things in the fluff, Fabius himself is not interesting), but rather he was just written as a mad scientist stereotype of a normal Apothecary. My main enjoyment of the Fulgrim novel though was through Lucius.

 

Saul meanwhile can go die in a fire (and he did come to think of it), because damn did he get boring.

[Loesh]

Oh gods, Saul had the personality of a cinder-block, he was the worst part of it for me.

[Volt]

Oh gods, Saul had the personality of a cinder-block, he was the worst part of it for me.

I really don't understand the fan-fare for the character. Or why people were sad he died.

[Phoebus]

OR DID HE?

[Volt]

OR DID HE?

If he didn't he's stuck on Istvaan and missed the ride that picked up Loken.

 

(Who's a borderline Sue)

[Phoebus]

Sounds like someone has forgotten what Ancient Rylanor was up to during Fulgrim...

“Not like Rylanor to run from a fight,’ noted Eidolon, turning a corner and marching down a parchment-lined corridor that led to the grand staircase of the ship’s central apothecarion.

‘No,’ agreed Lucius, ‘though Tarvitz did say something about him guarding something.’

‘Guarding what?’

‘He didn’t say. Rumour was he’d found some kind of underground hangar, but if that were the case, then why didn’t Praal use it to escape when the Legions arrived?’

‘True,’ agreed Eidolon. ‘It is the nature of the coward to flee rather than fight. Well, no matter, whatever Rylanor’s purpose, it is irrelevant, for he is buried beneath thousands of tonnes of radioactive slag.”

Excerpt From: Graham McNeill. “Fulgrim.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/7VwZy.l

Emphasis mine. Now, you can read into "thousands of tonnes of radioactive slag" however you like, but I'm pretty sure that reads about as convincing as, "Thank goodness the villain fell down that hundred-foot waterfall and into that churning white-water rapid! Surely he'll never come back to haunt us!!!"

But hey, I'm sure you guys are right and such an obvious wink at the reader by the author will never materialize as Tarvitz's improbable survival later on. You know, kind of like Loken "dying" in a way that obviously left it open for him to come back was meant to be a definitive death.

[Loesh]

Sounds like someone has forgotten what Ancient Rylanor was up to during Fulgrim...

“Not like Rylanor to run from a fight,’ noted Eidolon, turning a corner and marching down a parchment-lined corridor that led to the grand staircase of the ship’s central apothecarion.

‘No,’ agreed Lucius, ‘though Tarvitz did say something about him guarding something.’

‘Guarding what?’

‘He didn’t say. Rumour was he’d found some kind of underground hangar, but if that were the case, then why didn’t Praal use it to escape when the Legions arrived?’

‘True,’ agreed Eidolon. ‘It is the nature of the coward to flee rather than fight. Well, no matter, whatever Rylanor’s purpose, it is irrelevant, for he is buried beneath thousands of tonnes of radioactive slag.”

Excerpt From: Graham McNeill. “Fulgrim.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/7VwZy.l

Emphasis mine. Now, you can read into "thousands of tonnes of radioactive slag" however you like, but I'm pretty sure that reads about as convincing as, "Thank goodness the villain fell down that hundred-foot waterfall and into that churning white-water rapid! Surely he'll never come back to haunt us!!!"

But hey, I'm sure you guys are right and such an obvious wink at the reader by the author will never materialize as Tarvitz's improbable survival later on. You know, kind of like Loken "dying" in a way that obviously left it open for him to come back was meant to be a definitive death.

You know if it actually turned out that he really was dead as a doornail, that would actually be a more impressive swerve then a twist where he lived these days.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

Loken.

 

His survival basically crapped on the impact of the first three books. I havent gone back to re-read them because of it.

 

WLK

[Phoebus]

Loesh,

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment...  I just never understood the surprise that informed the outrage of so many readers when Loken came back.  Everything that informs what Space Marines are (specifically, their survivability) and the way Loken was put away practically screamed at me that he survived.

 

Personally, I think the biggest error Black Library made there (besides whether or not he should have come back, which is a debate I don't want to get into) was waiting as long as they did to bring him back.  The Knights Errant and Shattered Legions storylines should have started basically as shortly after Isstvan V as possible, precisely so as to avoid the glut of that material we're seeing right now.  I have a feeling people wouldn't be so opposed to either storyline if we weren't seeing so much more of them in comparison to the main storyline.

[Valkyrion]

On a more universal level, no author has yet managed to portray Abaddon well during the HH series, and I'm yet to find a single Salamander, Iron Hand, Iron Warrior, Imperial Fist, Space Wolf, Blood Angel or Ultramarine that I can properly identify/sympathise/empathise with and that is across the broad range of authors.

 

Torgaddon, Loken, Little Horus, Lucius, Argel Tal, Sevatar, Khârn, Ahriman and Yesugei are amongst the best Astartes characters in the series, again regardless of the author.

 

If an author can take a chapter or legion I'm not too fond of (White Scars, Word Bearers, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, World Eaters) and make me like them then I'll likely like whatever works that author produces.

Conversely, if an author damages a chapter I did like (Crimson Fists, Ultramarines, Blood Angels) then that will cast a shadow on his future works.

[Phoebus]

Given what a good job McNeill had done with Little Horus, I was rather disappointed with his one-dimensional (I thought) approach to Abaddon.  I'm reaching here, but I wonder if Abaddon - being an icon of the setting and all - isn't viewed as a bit too much of an obstacle/sacred cow when it comes to writing him.  Meaning, sometimes the author just sticks with him being gruff and bellicose and little else because they don't want to rock the boat/overreach/upset the fan base by portraying him "controversially".

Where Imperial Fists are concerned, Valkyrion, you didn't like Alexis Pollux from The Crimson Fist at all?  Also, while none of the Space Wolf characters from Prospero Burns were protagonists, per se, I felt the supporting cast - as a whole - were engaging and interesting.  This may have been deliberate (the pack as a character, perhaps?), because Abnett chose to apply the same focus on them in The Unremembered Empire vis-a-vis the pack assigned to watch over Guilliman.

 

Beyond that, I feel your pain.  Effort has been put in fleshing out the recurring cast of the Sisypheum in McNeill's Shattered Legions stories, but they just don't really grab me.  Similarly, I just didn't find myself feeling concerned about the Blood Angels of Fear to Tread.

 

Ultramarines, though?  Granted, Know No Fear was about the battle more so than any one individual, but I thought Ventanus was a rather good character.

[Volt]

On a more universal level, no author has yet managed to portray Abaddon well during the HH series, and I'm yet to find a single Salamander, Iron Hand, Iron Warrior, Imperial Fist, Space Wolf, Blood Angel or Ultramarine that I can properly identify/sympathise/empathise with and that is across the broad range of authors.

 

Torgaddon, Loken, Little Horus, Lucius, Argel Tal, Sevatar, Khârn, Ahriman and Yesugei are amongst the best Astartes characters in the series, again regardless of the author.

 

If an author can take a chapter or legion I'm not too fond of (White Scars, Word Bearers, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, World Eaters) and make me like them then I'll likely like whatever works that author produces.

Conversely, if an author damages a chapter I did like (Crimson Fists, Ultramarines, Blood Angels) then that will cast a shadow on his future works.

Actually there are some sympathetic Salamanders you can really get "the feels" for in Nick Kyme's Salamander series. They just aren't the main characters. Argos, Elysius, Fugis, and Ba'ken are all good characters, ranging from fair to good in depth and interest. Elysius especially is notable, as he's one of the more interesting Chaplains that isn't a member of the Dark Angels.

[Tenebris]

Truth be told so far I disliked every single Salamander in the Black Library novels, HH and 40k both. Either they are plain, boring or way too humanitarian for a geneforged killing machine...

 

In fact my only problem with the majority of the BL authors is the following, they seem to often forgot that they are writing a 40k novel and they just write a sci-fi action. Allow me to elaborate. I can say that I devour BL books on a weekly basis and so far only in ADB works I have felt that the 40k universe is portrayed in its core concepts. In ADB books we actually read of a quite visceral way that a power armour has an anima, that a space ship has a spirit, a machine spirit and we can read about the countless upon countless layers of rituals, titles and aspects that befit a highly gothic, feudal, almost medieval society in a fictional universe, in space. 

 

For example you read about relic weapons across the books of the other authors, but only ADB goes to the core of the concept "ritual weapon" and what this entails. We read of machine spirits in the other books to but none are near the actual and original interpretation in the setting that is glimpsed in ADB's works, namely the animus of a weapon, its history, its almost sentience... 

 

While other books are fine, and many of them are good reads I find often enough muzing on this, I think I have read a 40k novel but it felt just like an ordinary sci-fi action novel, with none of the grimdark, fedual, gothic aspects one would expect form the setting, aspects which define the Warhammer 40k lore. 

 

Now a redeeming quality of some authors is a rather effective portrayal of the human characters but that is a standard concept, most of them though fail in the portrayal of the true aspects of 40k, the grimdark, the xenos, the hatred, the ritualistic and feudal society, the transhuman, the posthuman, the abhuman and the daemonic...

 

My 2 cents...