Master of Mankind - Review or Spoilers?

[Cleanse And Purify]

Not sure how anyone hates this novel. Thought it was quite clearly ADB's magnum opus. 

 

Also, may we talk for a minute about ADB's prose? I cannot be alone in my admiration for the way he writes. Genre fiction authors, particularly tie-in authors, are generally not known for the high quality of their prose style, but I can safely say that ADB puts lie to that stereotype. Evocative without descending into the trap of purple prose, and I swear to jeebus, sometimes the imagery he conjures is flawless. This has been consistent throughout all of his novels, but he hit a particular balance this time between brevity of phrase and depth of description that I, as a student and scholar (it's true, I have a fancy piece of paper telling me so) of language and composition, deeply appreciate.

 

Anyone else? Just me? :(

[mc warhammer]

as for opinions on the mom spoilers themselves- so far i like what i've read. i'm open to interpreting the novel in the way adb seems to have intended- as a series of different and often conflicting viewpoints on ol' empy.

 

as for referring to primarchs

as numbers rather than as his #squad, context might be what's important here. as an irl example (that is nowhere near perfect), there are times i've referred to a girlfriend using different terms depending on what i thought was appropriate to that particular situation or the specific person i was talking to. in the privacy of your own home, nicknames can be used. in public, generic terms like "partner" are fine. if you both work together, you might use terms that imply you're strangers. not to mention that you only have so much control over how others will interpret your words anyway

 

[MrDarth151]

 

You are, frankly, wrong.

 

Point number one: By the very definition, there is not point to nihilism. If the ultimate end of 40k is everything getting destroyed by Chaos, then there is no point to setting existing. Every single story we have thus far have been pointless. The Emperor beating Horus at the end of HH has been pointless. Every single story we have seen of the universe is pointless, because there is no greater end game: There is just 40k version of the End Times.

 

snipped a bunch of this.

 

nihilism isn't  as simple "there is no point", because there certainly is for nihilists. but there's google for things like this.

 

the imperium is also not made up of nihilists- they're zealots. and they're fighting to their last.

 

if you can only enjoy a story that leads to ultimate victory then 99% of modern heroic fiction is there for you. if you're interested in stories about the actual struggle itself rather than just the conclusion, then you're in the right place. there's something powerful about watching someone fight on despite knowing they won't win. in some ways, that's more powerful.

 

and just because there won't be a huge gandalf moment in 40k doesn't mean that every smaller victory along the way is worthless. you might as well say that every good moment in your life has been pointless because you will die one day.

 

 

I enjoy ambiguity, not certainty. I do not require 40k story leading to ultimate victory. I have argued the exact same thing as you do right here in the past, and I will probably do so again.

 

There is, however, a difference, subtle but certain, between ambiguity and certainty. The ultimate victory of Chaos was actually in question as far as 40k was concerned. Now it isn't.

 

 

 

 

As an ethicist you should completely understand the point of investment in the loyalist faction.

 

'Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it'

The issue here is that the loyalist faction can only be good with heavy involvement of utilitarian and consequentialist ethics and the problem with that is that the end justifies the means only if you achieve said end.

 

As long as there is a glimmer of hope, no matter how small, there is a point to defiance. And what can I do is the face of meta statement declaring any resistance futile?

Utilitarian and Consequentialist lenses are excellent ways to write your own army background, and they are good methods of critquing the fiction in an academic sense. But they are not concrete foundations to build the universe on. There is a reason moral relativism is the oldest and most pervasive Metaphysical lesson on the timeline of human history, and that is because in the end ethics and morality are unique to each individual person, even in shared ethnic and national groups. The same man who cheats on his wife with hookers behind a bar Friday night might be in church Sunday morning and lecturing his students on civic duty and loyalty in class Monday. And his story will be repeated and repudiated by every other single person in his demographic. Ethics and morality are not positive sciences, they are ideas and ideas cannot be enforced universally. If they could I could see your point. As they cannot, it's pointless to try and make them.

 

 

I am aware. And it can hold as in universe perspective.

 

Outside of it? Not so much.

 

But let's drop this discussion, it does not lead anywhere.

[Marshal Rohr]

Not sure how anyone hates this novel. Thought it was quite clearly ADB's magnum opus.

 

Also, may we talk for a minute about ADB's prose? I cannot be alone in my admiration for the way he writes. Genre fiction authors, particularly tie-in authors, are generally not known for the high quality of their prose style, but I can safely say that ADB puts lie to that stereotype. Evocative without descending into the trap of purple prose, and I swear to jeebus, sometimes the imagery he conjures is flawless. This has been consistent throughout all of his novels, but he hit a particular balance this time between brevity of phrase and depth of description that I, as a student and scholar (it's true, I have a fancy piece of paper telling me so) of language and composition, deeply appreciate.

 

Anyone else? Just me? :(

I'm totally with you. In any genre, under license or original work his writing is awesome.

[mc warhammer]

As for the supernatural, human beings are good and evil enough on our own. I don't need an evil god or pantheon to explain actions when ideology and politics have done a far better job than any fantasy could for tens of thousands of years. Chaos and the chaos gods say more about their fans views on the real world than any powerful force in-niverse, the same way loyalists and loyalist fans cling to their side for their own real world reasons.

firstly, let me just say that i'm not a fan of any faction. that's a whole level of the fandom i don't really understand or feel any real need to.

secondly, are you saying that chaos doesn't exist as an independent force in-universe and has no real influence on events beyond their fan's wishes? or are you being meta and arguing from an in-universe loyalist's perspective?

An opinion that indicates hate still spreads it.

i'd say an uninformed opinion usually tends towards the destructive, but i do empathise with you.

I'm saying I see 40k in the same way I see game of thrones. Dragons and ice demons and fire gods exist (chaos in 40k would parallel this), but I personally enjoy Tyrion talking about why Khaleesi would be stupid to execute all the noble families in Westeros or Tywin's lectures on family alliances and real politik more than seeing dragons burn people.

got it.

i think GoT operates under a slightly different set of in-universe rules. while there are dark forces in GoT, they are largely undefined so their degree of influence is also uncertain. most gods beyond r'hllor don't seem to have the ability to answer prayers or affect the setting. we don't even know what r'hllor actually is.

whereas in 40k, chaos is presented as a primal force from another reality that has actual power and we have some understanding as to what they are and what their goals are. the manipulation by chaos in 40k is much more prevalent than supernatural forces in GoT, where the horror usually comes from the choices people make unassisted by dark forces.

or to try to simplify my point- the red wedding would possibly happen whether or not r'hllor exists, whereas the horus heresy probably wouldn't without chaos.

Not sure how anyone hates this novel. Thought it was quite clearly ADB's magnum opus.

Also, may we talk for a minute about ADB's prose? I cannot be alone in my admiration for the way he writes. Genre fiction authors, particularly tie-in authors, are generally not known for the high quality of their prose style, but I can safely say that ADB puts lie to that stereotype. Evocative without descending into the trap of purple prose, and I swear to jeebus, sometimes the imagery he conjures is flawless. This has been consistent throughout all of his novels, but he hit a particular balance this time between brevity of phrase and depth of description that I, as a student and scholar (it's true, I have a fancy piece of paper telling me so) of language and composition, deeply appreciate.

Anyone else? Just me?

yeah, adb and abnett score big on that front, for me.

You are, frankly, wrong.

Point number one: By the very definition, there is not point to nihilism. If the ultimate end of 40k is everything getting destroyed by Chaos, then there is no point to setting existing. Every single story we have thus far have been pointless. The Emperor beating Horus at the end of HH has been pointless. Every single story we have seen of the universe is pointless, because there is no greater end game: There is just 40k version of the End Times.

snipped a bunch of this.

nihilism isn't as simple "there is no point", because there certainly is for nihilists. but there's google for things like this.

the imperium is also not made up of nihilists- they're zealots. and they're fighting to their last.

if you can only enjoy a story that leads to ultimate victory then 99% of modern heroic fiction is there for you. if you're interested in stories about the actual struggle itself rather than just the conclusion, then you're in the right place. there's something powerful about watching someone fight on despite knowing they won't win. in some ways, that's more powerful.

and just because there won't be a huge gandalf moment in 40k doesn't mean that every smaller victory along the way is worthless. you might as well say that every good moment in your life has been pointless because you will die one day.

I enjoy ambiguity, not certainty. I do not require 40k story leading to ultimate victory. I have argued the exact same thing as you do right here in the past, and I will probably do so again.

There is, however, a difference, subtle but certain, between ambiguity and certainty. The ultimate victory of Chaos was actually in question as far as 40k was concerned. Now it isn't.

sure, i can see that. but i honestly haven't ever seen that ambiguity supported by 40k text at any point over the years. which isn't surprising, since there's so bloody much of it.

can you supply examples?

[The_son_of_Dorn]

 

 

 

As for the supernatural, human beings are good and evil enough on our own. I don't need an evil god or pantheon to explain actions when ideology and politics have done a far better job than any fantasy could for tens of thousands of years. Chaos and the chaos gods say more about their fans views on the real world than any powerful force in-niverse, the same way loyalists and loyalist fans cling to their side for their own real world reasons.

 

 

firstly, let me just say that i'm not a fan of any faction. that's a whole level of the fandom i don't really understand or feel any real need to.

 

secondly, are you saying that chaos doesn't exist as an independent force in-universe and has no real influence on events beyond their fan's wishes? or are you being meta and arguing from an in-universe loyalist's perspective?

An opinion that indicates hate still spreads it.

 

i'd say an uninformed opinion usually tends towards the destructive, but i do empathise with you.

 

I'd say you are choosing what to read, not embracing what has been written. then again we all cling to what we hope to be true. 

 

as you already know

[Marshal Loss]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best book in the series, probably even the setting. Utterly brilliant. 30k has been going from strength to strength in the last couple of years I've found (books like Path of Heaven and Praetorian of Dorn were both great), but this is on a whole other level. And as a Black Legion fanboy from a very young age, I can't help but grin at the repercussions.

 

A weapon that foolishly believes itself a man. What a book. And with the last line of the epilogue, my fervent praying for an ADB take on the Emperor vs Horus - what a conversation that would be - begins.

 

Buy it.

[Marshal Rohr]

MC Warhammer: I agree with you, but I'm trying to avoid a quote wall of doom.

 

My point was while the Heresy couldn't happen without chaos, but the red wedding could happen without Rh'llor(how ever it's spelled) if we are naming or preferences I would rather read a book about a Heresy Red Wedding than a book about Iron Hands doing guerilla missions, if that makes sense. This book is great because it does both with Mechanicum and Palace intrigue and also showing the Emperor and how the throne works and stuff.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

30k will over take 40k as we all know. not via game strategy or GW or their infinite "wisdom" it's because we all enjoy the story and seek to change it to our own individual needs.  

[SpecialIssue]

It's gratifying that many of the fluff points about the Big E's inner thoughts and the Custodes seem to be matching up to my own views. No doubt the writing is also good.

 

However, the above discussion confirms my despair at how people seem to be viewing this universe more and more; as a story and not a setting. Looking at outcomes instead of actions. Wanting a narrative and exposition of every bit of fluff and thematic flavor in the universe.

 

Drach'nea's fleshing out adds thematic flavor.

The Big E's motivations don't, instead diluting his thematic contribution to the setting as an unknowable, distant yet resplendent figure. I appreciate the conflict thrown up by the revisionist nature of how he actually is, but I would prefer to view that at arms length, inferred through his actions, not his words.

 

Despite the additive need for clarity and conclusion, 40k is best when neither is given on its main plot points. When the E's big plan is never revealed, when his inner thoughts are never known, when his actions are the only things speaking for him. I much prefer where actions and happenstances are given as fait accompli, and we are forced to discuss and theorize about the whys and motivations behind them. It also leaves the widest room possible for individual interpretation.

 

There is no set 'narrative' or 'plan' known to the audience. There is no 'ethical' dilemma on who is best because within every faction, those ethics and even memories aren't even unified. The only things set in stone is that there is slaughter and it is up to the players to make of it what they will.

 

I will again point to the pre-"The Black Library HH series" book Angels of Darkness as a seminal work of what I regard as good contribution to the 40k overarching 'narrative'. It doesn't provide clarity, but only muddies perceptions and memories of events, providing even more interpretations of what is 'canon'. And it does so while being highly subjective - it is completely canon-friendly to completely reject everything said there as lies.

 

I guess that's a word I was looking for. If we are to have a grand overarching narrative to 30k-40k fiction, it needs to be more subjective. Give more questions than answers, prevent the universe being completely locked down without any room for discussion.

 

Inference over exposition.

Setting over story.

Subjective over objective truths.

 

These would only serve to increase the scope of the universe, but frankly the horse has long since bolted - much of the nuance and mystery of 40k has almost been completely erased, and further generations of players will know only these 'truths' instead of coming up and imagining how it could be. All we are doing now is waiting for the final few answers to tie up the story it has become. Such earth-shattering events and history such as the Heresy, seen in an air of wonder and speculation, are now to be viewed as little more than a mundane extension of 40k.

[mc warhammer]

MC Warhammer: I agree with you, but I'm trying to avoid a quote wall of doom.

 

My point was while the Heresy couldn't happen without chaos, but the red wedding could happen without Rh'llor(how ever it's spelled) if we are naming or preferences I would rather read a book about a Heresy Red Wedding than a book about Iron Hands doing guerilla missions, if that makes sense. This book is great because it does both with Mechanicum and Palace intrigue and also showing the Emperor and how the throne works and stuff.

 

i think it does, and i think our tastes are largely similar in that case.

 

looking forward to reading the book myself.

[Marshal Rohr]

Is anyone else not worried by the foreshadowing of Drach'nyen. Seahawk laid out the parralels between fantasy and the end times in 40k and now I firmly believe 40k is going to get axed up into different forces and factions Age of Sigmar style. We've known 40k was on the way out setting wise for a year or so now, but this seems like hard evidence that all the fun 3rd edition fluff is going away for ever and we are just going to have Marines (liberators) vs all the various armies of the end times. No upcoming update for guard, no love for orks, it's all just seems like a good sign that 40k being two minutes to midnight isn't a thing anymore and they are going to recreate the game using the fluff about Abaddon winning and reality tearing itself apart into AoS like floating bubbles of reality. The Tzangor kit being dual purpose for AoS and 40k is a huge warning sign. There's no room for guard, Tau, and the other factions grounded in real world stuff in a setting like that :(

[Marshal Rohr]

It's gratifying that many of the fluff points about the Big E's inner thoughts and the Custodes seem to be matching up to my own views. No doubt the writing is also good.

 

However, the above discussion confirms my despair at how people seem to be viewing this universe more and more; as a story and not a setting. Looking at outcomes instead of actions. Wanting a narrative and exposition of every bit of fluff and thematic flavor in the universe.

 

Drach'nea's fleshing out adds thematic flavor.

The Big E's motivations don't, instead diluting his thematic contribution to the setting as an unknowable, distant yet resplendent figure. I appreciate the conflict thrown up by the revisionist nature of how he actually is, but I would prefer to view that at arms length, inferred through his actions, not his words.

 

Despite the additive need for clarity and conclusion, 40k is best when neither is given on its main plot points. When the E's big plan is never revealed, when his inner thoughts are never known, when his actions are the only things speaking for him. I much prefer where actions and happenstances are given as fait accompli, and we are forced to discuss and theorize about the whys and motivations behind them. It also leaves the widest room possible for individual interpretation.

 

There is no set 'narrative' or 'plan' known to the audience. There is no 'ethical' dilemma on who is best because within every faction, those ethics and even memories aren't even unified. The only things set in stone is that there is slaughter and it is up to the players to make of it what they will.

 

I will again point to the pre-"The Black Library HH series" book Angels of Darkness as a seminal work of what I regard as good contribution to the 40k overarching 'narrative'. It doesn't provide clarity, but only muddies perceptions and memories of events, providing even more interpretations of what is 'canon'. And it does so while being highly subjective - it is completely canon-friendly to completely reject everything said there as lies.

 

I guess that's a word I was looking for. If we are to have a grand overarching narrative to 30k-40k fiction, it needs to be more subjective. Give more questions than answers, prevent the universe being completely locked down without any room for discussion.

 

Inference over exposition.

Setting over story.

Subjective over objective truths.

 

These would only serve to increase the scope of the universe, but frankly the horse has long since bolted - much of the nuance and mystery of 40k has almost been completely erased, and further generations of players will know only these 'truths' instead of coming up and imagining how it could be. All we are doing now is waiting for the final few answers to tie up the story it has become. Such earth-shattering events and history such as the Heresy, seen in an air of wonder and speculation, are now to be viewed as little more than a mundane extension of 40k.

Sadly this is true. The past few years of revelatory fluff are washing out the old guard like they did with fantasy.

[Scribe]

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

 

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

 

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

[mc warhammer]

 

Inference over exposition.

Setting over story.

Subjective over objective truths.

 

 

i can agree in general, though you still need exposition, story and some objective truth to actually string a tale together. which is probably what you're saying anyway.

 

it's also somewhat related to darth's interesting point about certainty vs ambiguity. though he's focusing that criteria on a different question than the one i choose to. i'm fine with the outcome being "certain"... but the way they face that outcome? that's not certain at all.

[Marshal Rohr]

This wasn't really the book for it, but I really hope ADB does get a chance to write loyalists before the end. If only to swing the pendulum back in the direction of giving us a reason to be proud of our guys again. Hopefully Black Legion will do something similar by expositions on how the loyalists can make their defeats matter and their loyalties justified.

[MrDarth151]

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

 

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

 

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

 

Pah. I am just as against any certainty of Imperial victory as I am against certainty of Chaos victory.

 

And if you consider that a high fantasy, then I pity you.

 

Though frankly, with heavy handed pushing for Abaddon as the ultimate victor, I see 40k End Times happening before the 8th edition hits.

[Scribe]

 

 

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

 

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

 

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

Pah. I am just as against any certainty of Imperial victory as I am against certainty of Chaos victory.

 

And if you consider that a high fantasy, then I pity you.

 

Though frankly, with heavy handed pushing for Abaddon as the ultimate victor, I see 40k End Times happening before the 8th edition hits.

Well perhaps not high fantasy, but certainly not what I want.

 

40K, where we as players know that it's all futile and 'an eternity of war' with a backdrop of ever laughing thirsty god's?

 

I'll keep that all day.

[Cleanse And Purify]

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

 

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

 

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

Agreed. I hate Age of Sigmar. It ruined one of my favorite fantasy settings and replaced it with absolute dreck. I do not want to see the same happen to 40k. If it does, then I can only assume GW is truly allergic to the idea of making money, since I know of literally no one who enjoys Age of Sigmar, or even plays it.

[Sete]

AoS is great, and replaced a dead game.

The same won't happen to 40k because it's going strong. Horus heresy is boosting it aswell.

I do play AoS, enjoy it, and my small group is growing steadily.

Death,khorne,stormcast and Seraphon.

[MrDarth151]

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

Pah. I am just as against any certainty of Imperial victory as I am against certainty of Chaos victory.

And if you consider that a high fantasy, then I pity you.

Though frankly, with heavy handed pushing for Abaddon as the ultimate victor, I see 40k End Times happening before the 8th edition hits.

Well perhaps not high fantasy, but certainly not what I want.

40K, where we as players know that it's all futile and 'an eternity of war' with a backdrop of ever laughing thirsty god's?

I'll keep that all day.

I find a certain degree of amusement, because the "Chaos will win" is the thing that has been made so explicit and heavily pushed most likely precisely because we are going to see 40k end times.

Abaddon is going to win and the setting as you know it will end. Enjoy the feeling of futility.

I'm not too worried that shared models signal the end, we have shared daemons forever.

My worry is that they would reboot with a more high fantasy kick.

Something more up Darth's alley is exactly what I don't want, and is more what AoS turned out to be.

Agreed. I hate Age of Sigmar. It ruined one of my favorite fantasy settings and replaced it with absolute dreck. I do not want to see the same happen to 40k. If it does, then I can only assume GW is truly allergic to the idea of making money, since I know of literally no one who enjoys Age of Sigmar, or even plays it.

And yet, the GW financial report says that AoS sells better than fantasy did for years.

[Scribe]

It does a year or so after yes.

 

As to chaos winning, GW having the stones to do it in Fantasy, a dead game, doesn't mean they will kill the golden goose.

 

Just because we know on a long enough time line it must happen, doesn't mean a thing to the game.

 

I would be happy to freeze the setting once Cadia falls.

[Sete]

It will freeze as Abbadon sieges Terra.

[mc warhammer]

It will freeze as Abbadon sieges Terra.

 

 

or when dorothy arrives to give the emperor the heart he always wanted

[Sete]

A good assumption as any ;)