Fulgrim and the Ferrus Clones

[Augustus]

Warmaster by French is probably the piece of Horus Heresy fiction that I like the most. The narration is so powerful. The way Horus speaking gradually builds power and tension and the surprise at the end -- talking to Ferrus' skull. Amazing.

[mc warhammer]

Warmaster by French is probably the piece of Horus Heresy fiction that I like the most. The narration is so powerful. The way Horus speaking gradually builds power and tension and the surprise at the end -- talking to Ferrus' skull. Amazing.

 

pretty good summation of how i felt about it. i was left thinking about it long after.

 

thinking about this, a short story is the perfect format for character over plot.  you have minimal space and time.

 

i'd also bet there would be a mass of complaints if the plot was advanced in these smaller stories rather than the main novels.

[DarkChaplain]

I think I've listened to Warmaster about a hundred times since it released. It is a brilliant piece full of introspection and reflection.

 

 

 

i feel like sometimes these things catch like some sort of virus, once a large enough group start to complain about "progressing the story" and "filler", others latch on to that as a yardstick to measure every story by  even if that isn't the aim of a particular story.

 

 

I definitely agree with you here. There's a real tendency for hivemind-like behavior within any fandom, and ours is no exception.

 

I've seen, for example, a lot of people complaining about Gav Thorpe being a "terrible" writer, groaning over every book with his name on it, when they haven't read many of his books (especially outside the Heresy or the recent TBA). Similar goes for authors who just recently crossed over to 40k from writing WHFB for years, like David Guymer.

 

To be completely honest, I always dread folks like HeritorA popping up early in a thread, because he, and others, tend to steer things into a negative light, and many others are unlikely to consider looking at even just the extract on BL for themselves once it appears that a negative consensus was met, even if it is just down to two or three voices.

 

That's something I'd like to see avoided more often especially with new authors, a bunch of which joined the BL team this past year, like Andy Clark, Mike Mason, Matt Smith, Chris Dows, Robbie MacNiven, Alec Worley, Ian St. Martin and Matt Westbrook. Robbie MacNiven seems to be well-regarded, especially with him being on the forum here (something that gains a lot of popularity points all around, even from people who haven't read a particular author, I've noticed, simply down to direct interaction with the fandom. It actually looked like it swung disgruntled "this book is horrible" Space Wolves fans around when it happened). Chris Dows got a bit of a bump when the Khârn stories kicked off, but things have looked better towards the end of the serialization. Matt Smith's recently posted a thread about his debut short for BL and it seemed well-received (again, personal interaction with the community fostering positivity).

That whole communication angle is nowhere more apparent than with AD-B, whose works have been excellent yet on their own probably wouldn't have instilled the sort of Word Bearers-level fervour we can see here on many threads, even unrelated ones.

 

I've noticed that a lot of books, especially older ones which didn't have active discussions at their time, have quite an uphill battle to do now. Cases like Deliverance Lost, Battle for the Abyss or Kyme's Salamanders have it difficult, and the prevalent negativity is keeping newer folks from giving them a fair chance. A lot of negativity even comes from people who have only hearsay to go on (like the whole C.S. Goto thing: Few people have taken the books for a ride, yet everyone is in agreement that they're a valid measure of terribleness).

 

That's partially why I try to separate my own position from the general consesus a lot, and defend stories and authors, given that I've read them or the relevant works being discussed. I was apprehensive about re-reading Deliverance Lost, but went along with it anyway, and found that I liked it a damn sight more and that it was a good deal better than what my feelings from 2012 and the forum-vibes have made me feel. Same with a lot of stories considered "filler" or "unnecessary", and some books that are heavily praised weren't to my taste or had noticeable flaws generally overlooked which were worth pointing out.

 

And since this is a relatively big and certainly old fandom with lots of revisions over the years, almost everybody comes in with some preconceived notions for their factions of interest, and as a result certain expectations for characters and events. Even just slight changes to the formula, even when they are fully sanctioned by the IP counsel as far as the Heresy goes, have people on edge - even when they haven't read it in detail and only got rumors, spoilers or even leaks to go on. That's going on right now on the Master of Mankind thread, and the one for Leman Russ. Things can get entrenched very easily, and I find it important to try and go into things with a fresh mind. Although to be fair, I don't think I've managed that with the Age of Sigmar fiction. I despise the setting and the price we paid for it to exist, and that will probably sour my views forever.

 

I'm rambling though, so I'll end with this advice:

Don't be afraid to contest popular opinion and making up your own mind. Try to challenge preconceived notions, even if they are your own, and take stories for what they are and what they attempt, not for what you think they absolutely must be.

[HeritorA]

Warmaster is plainly good!

'Warmaster by French is probably the piece of Horus Heresy fiction that I like the most. The narration is so powerful. The way Horus speaking gradually builds power and tension and the surprise at the end -- talking to Ferrus' skull. Amazing.' - true. The same kind of quality was relived only in 'The Last Remembrancer' (dialog with Dorn was great)

[mc warhammer]

I think I've listened to Warmaster about a hundred times since it released. It is a brilliant piece full of introspection and reflection.

 

 

 

i feel like sometimes these things catch like some sort of virus, once a large enough group start to complain about "progressing the story" and "filler", others latch on to that as a yardstick to measure every story by  even if that isn't the aim of a particular story.

 

 

I definitely agree with you here. There's a real tendency for hivemind-like behavior within any fandom, and ours is no exception.

 

I've seen, for example, a lot of people complaining about Gav Thorpe being a "terrible" writer, groaning over every book with his name on it, when they haven't read many of his books (especially outside the Heresy or the recent TBA). Similar goes for authors who just recently crossed over to 40k from writing WHFB for years, like David Guymer.

 

To be completely honest, I always dread folks like HeritorA popping up early in a thread, because he, and others, tend to steer things into a negative light, and many others are unlikely to consider looking at even just the extract on BL for themselves once it appears that a negative consensus was met, even if it is just down to two or three voices.

 

That's something I'd like to see avoided more often especially with new authors, a bunch of which joined the BL team this past year, like Andy Clark, Mike Mason, Matt Smith, Chris Dows, Robbie MacNiven, Alec Worley, Ian St. Martin and Matt Westbrook. Robbie MacNiven seems to be well-regarded, especially with him being on the forum here (something that gains a lot of popularity points all around, even from people who haven't read a particular author, I've noticed, simply down to direct interaction with the fandom. It actually looked like it swung disgruntled "this book is horrible" Space Wolves fans around when it happened). Chris Dows got a bit of a bump when the Khârn stories kicked off, but things have looked better towards the end of the serialization. Matt Smith's recently posted a thread about his debut short for BL and it seemed well-received (again, personal interaction with the community fostering positivity).

That whole communication angle is nowhere more apparent than with AD-B, whose works have been excellent yet on their own probably wouldn't have instilled the sort of Word Bearers-level fervour we can see here on many threads, even unrelated ones.

 

I've noticed that a lot of books, especially older ones which didn't have active discussions at their time, have quite an uphill battle to do now. Cases like Deliverance Lost, Battle for the Abyss or Kyme's Salamanders have it difficult, and the prevalent negativity is keeping newer folks from giving them a fair chance. A lot of negativity even comes from people who have only hearsay to go on (like the whole C.S. Goto thing: Few people have taken the books for a ride, yet everyone is in agreement that they're a valid measure of terribleness).

 

That's partially why I try to separate my own position from the general consesus a lot, and defend stories and authors, given that I've read them or the relevant works being discussed. I was apprehensive about re-reading Deliverance Lost, but went along with it anyway, and found that I liked it a damn sight more and that it was a good deal better than what my feelings from 2012 and the forum-vibes have made me feel. Same with a lot of stories considered "filler" or "unnecessary", and some books that are heavily praised weren't to my taste or had noticeable flaws generally overlooked which were worth pointing out.

 

And since this is a relatively big and certainly old fandom with lots of revisions over the years, almost everybody comes in with some preconceived notions for their factions of interest, and as a result certain expectations for characters and events. Even just slight changes to the formula, even when they are fully sanctioned by the IP counsel as far as the Heresy goes, have people on edge - even when they haven't read it in detail and only got rumors, spoilers or even leaks to go on. That's going on right now on the Master of Mankind thread, and the one for Leman Russ. Things can get entrenched very easily, and I find it important to try and go into things with a fresh mind. Although to be fair, I don't think I've managed that with the Age of Sigmar fiction. I despise the setting and the price we paid for it to exist, and that will probably sour my views forever.

 

I'm rambling though, so I'll end with this advice:

Don't be afraid to contest popular opinion and making up your own mind. Try to challenge preconceived notions, even if they are your own, and take stories for what they are and what they attempt, not for what you think they absolutely must be.

 

 

as i think i've said elsewhere- i believe hivemind is everywhere, it just stands out easily in fandom because everything and everyone is collected into a nice easy to point at bunch. it's a very human thing to follow the crowd- it probably saved our species a number of times in history.

 

that being said, i think your advice is probably the noblest thing someone can do on social media these days, in all sorts of context. i like to think of myself as an independent thinker like you, but i do often have to remind myself to be fair. or to come at things with a "fresh mind". or not to react. i'm glad that i've grown suspicious over time of jumping on band wagons.

 

as for being fair or unfair to writers... i do try to give writers i haven't enjoyed a chance. i have enjoyed some of gav's work and not enjoyed some. same goes for mcneill. it just so happens that i've enjoyed everything i've read by adb, abnett and thorpe. "imperfect" is the only piece of khyme's work i've had the pleasure of reading and it was solid. i can't judge any further- it was a short story and maybe that suits his particular talents. some writers are good at the sprint, others are marathon runners. some can do it all.

 

i think you also touch on something really interesting: gw, more than most properties, seems to encourage each reader to take ownership over their experience with their fiction. and while that's a hell cool aspect, it's also a double edged sword.

 

regarding certain posters being negative; i try and give as much slack as possible, especially if i feel that person might be dealing with a  language or cultural barrier that puts them at odds with the majority of current western/anglo thought process.

[HeritorA]

 

I think I've listened to Warmaster about a hundred times since it released. It is a brilliant piece full of introspection and reflection.

 

 

 

i feel like sometimes these things catch like some sort of virus, once a large enough group start to complain about "progressing the story" and "filler", others latch on to that as a yardstick to measure every story by  even if that isn't the aim of a particular story.

 

 

I definitely agree with you here. There's a real tendency for hivemind-like behavior within any fandom, and ours is no exception.

 

I've seen, for example, a lot of people complaining about Gav Thorpe being a "terrible" writer, groaning over every book with his name on it, when they haven't read many of his books (especially outside the Heresy or the recent TBA). Similar goes for authors who just recently crossed over to 40k from writing WHFB for years, like David Guymer.

 

To be completely honest, I always dread folks like HeritorA popping up early in a thread, because he, and others, tend to steer things into a negative light, and many others are unlikely to consider looking at even just the extract on BL for themselves once it appears that a negative consensus was met, even if it is just down to two or three voices.

 

That's something I'd like to see avoided more often especially with new authors, a bunch of which joined the BL team this past year, like Andy Clark, Mike Mason, Matt Smith, Chris Dows, Robbie MacNiven, Alec Worley, Ian St. Martin and Matt Westbrook. Robbie MacNiven seems to be well-regarded, especially with him being on the forum here (something that gains a lot of popularity points all around, even from people who haven't read a particular author, I've noticed, simply down to direct interaction with the fandom. It actually looked like it swung disgruntled "this book is horrible" Space Wolves fans around when it happened). Chris Dows got a bit of a bump when the Khârn stories kicked off, but things have looked better towards the end of the serialization. Matt Smith's recently posted a thread about his debut short for BL and it seemed well-received (again, personal interaction with the community fostering positivity).

That whole communication angle is nowhere more apparent than with AD-B, whose works have been excellent yet on their own probably wouldn't have instilled the sort of Word Bearers-level fervour we can see here on many threads, even unrelated ones.

 

I've noticed that a lot of books, especially older ones which didn't have active discussions at their time, have quite an uphill battle to do now. Cases like Deliverance Lost, Battle for the Abyss or Kyme's Salamanders have it difficult, and the prevalent negativity is keeping newer folks from giving them a fair chance. A lot of negativity even comes from people who have only hearsay to go on (like the whole C.S. Goto thing: Few people have taken the books for a ride, yet everyone is in agreement that they're a valid measure of terribleness).

 

That's partially why I try to separate my own position from the general consesus a lot, and defend stories and authors, given that I've read them or the relevant works being discussed. I was apprehensive about re-reading Deliverance Lost, but went along with it anyway, and found that I liked it a damn sight more and that it was a good deal better than what my feelings from 2012 and the forum-vibes have made me feel. Same with a lot of stories considered "filler" or "unnecessary", and some books that are heavily praised weren't to my taste or had noticeable flaws generally overlooked which were worth pointing out.

 

And since this is a relatively big and certainly old fandom with lots of revisions over the years, almost everybody comes in with some preconceived notions for their factions of interest, and as a result certain expectations for characters and events. Even just slight changes to the formula, even when they are fully sanctioned by the IP counsel as far as the Heresy goes, have people on edge - even when they haven't read it in detail and only got rumors, spoilers or even leaks to go on. That's going on right now on the Master of Mankind thread, and the one for Leman Russ. Things can get entrenched very easily, and I find it important to try and go into things with a fresh mind. Although to be fair, I don't think I've managed that with the Age of Sigmar fiction. I despise the setting and the price we paid for it to exist, and that will probably sour my views forever.

 

I'm rambling though, so I'll end with this advice:

Don't be afraid to contest popular opinion and making up your own mind. Try to challenge preconceived notions, even if they are your own, and take stories for what they are and what they attempt, not for what you think they absolutely must be.

 

 

as i think i've said elsewhere- i believe hivemind is everywhere, it just stands out easily in fandom because everything and everyone is collected into a nice easy to point at bunch. it's a very human thing to follow the crowd- it probably saved our species a number of times in history.

 

that being said, i think your advice is probably the noblest thing someone can do on social media these days, in all sorts of context. i like to think of myself as an independent thinker like you, but i do often have to remind myself to be fair. or to come at things with a "fresh mind". or not to react. i'm glad that i've grown suspicious over time of jumping on band wagons.

 

as for being fair or unfair to writers... i do try to give writers i haven't enjoyed a chance. i have enjoyed some of gav's work and not enjoyed some. same goes for mcneill. it just so happens that i've enjoyed everything i've read by adb, abnett and thorpe. "imperfect" is the only piece of khyme's work i've had the pleasure of reading and it was solid. i can't judge any further- it was a short story and maybe that suits his particular talents. some writers are good at the sprint, others are marathon runners. some can do it all.

 

i think you also touch on something really interesting: gw, more than most properties, seems to encourage each reader to take ownership over their experience with their fiction. and while that's a hell cool aspect, it's also a double edged sword.

 

regarding certain posters being negative; i try and give as much slack as possible, especially if i feel that person might be dealing with a  language or cultural barrier that puts them at odds with the majority of current western/anglo thought process.

 

Tyranids lore is a big hole to drop into. The main problem of tyranids hivemind and it's being everywhere is - why the tyranids still hasn't eaten everything yet? Why move with tendrils - if you could wake up all of them and simply raze the Galaxy in one go?