Best books from 2016

[Allart01]

Path of Heaven

Master of Mankind

Angels of Caliban

Scars

Unforgiven

[Sete]

For me, Path of Heaven, Master of Mankind.

Praetorian of Dorn was ok but didn't rock my world.

[Sandlemad]

Master of Mankind was probably the best and most thought-provoking BL book I read all year but I have to say that I enjoyed Path of Heaven (for the amazing moments and the heartbreak of losing particular characters) and Fabius Bile: Primogenitor (for the hilarity and the delightful weirdness) a lot more.

 

Best non-BL book was Sofia Samatar's lyrical The Winged Histories. A book about a civil war narrated by four involved women - an embittered soldier, an idle socialite, a scholarly daughter of a religious leader, and a traditional poet - without a single battle appearing 'on-screen', so to speak. Absolutely gorgeous.

[veterannoob]

There's a difference in what I read in 2016 and what came out in 2016 so I'm trying to think but I did enjoy MoM. Though I feel like I need to listen to it again. Read Into Exile last week about Land and makes me want to go through it again. Maybe next week.

 

Gotta add Path of Heaven at least. 

[HeritorA]

For me, Path of Heaven, Master of Mankind.

Praetorian of Dorn was ok but didn't rock my world.

Master of Mankind did? It is a good book - but the one to 'rock your world'? Can I  as a humble reader ask you about the reasons beneath that? Just curious - what exactly 'amazeballs' was in MoM for you?

 

There's a difference in what I read in 2016 and what came out in 2016 so I'm trying to think but I did enjoy MoM. Though I feel like I need to listen to it again. Read Into Exile last week about Land and makes me want to go through it again. Maybe next week.

 

Gotta add Path of Heaven at least. 

You haven't read Path of Heaven? Kenny how could you have missed the best novel of 2016?

[veterannoob]

For me, Path of Heaven, Master of Mankind.

Praetorian of Dorn was ok but didn't rock my world.

Master of Mankind did? It is a good book - but the one to 'rock your world'? Can I as a humble reader ask you about the reasons beneath that? Just curious - what exactly 'amazeballs' was in MoM for you?

There's a difference in what I read in 2016 and what came out in 2016 so I'm trying to think but I did enjoy MoM. Though I feel like I need to listen to it again. Read Into Exile last week about Land and makes me want to go through it again. Maybe next week.

Gotta add Path of Heaven at least.

You haven't read Path of Heaven? Kenny how could you have missed the best novel of 2016?

Meaning add PoH to best book list Listened to it twice in Sweden, once in US since. It's actually up in the rotation again.

[MrDarth151]

I thought Path of Heaven was good, but the latter part of the book felt a little bit too quickly paced for my liking. Still one of the best in 2016,  I just like Praetorian of Dorn better. It struck good structural balance for me.

 

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

[Sete]

 

 

For me, Path of Heaven, Master of Mankind.

Praetorian of Dorn was ok but didn't rock my world.

Master of Mankind did? It is a good book - but the one to 'rock your world'? Can I as a humble reader ask you about the reasons beneath that? Just curious - what exactly 'amazeballs' was in MoM for you?

There's a difference in what I read in 2016 and what came out in 2016 so I'm trying to think but I did enjoy MoM. Though I feel like I need to listen to it again. Read Into Exile last week about Land and makes me want to go through it again. Maybe next week.

 

Gotta add Path of Heaven at least.

You haven't read Path of Heaven? Kenny how could you have missed the best novel of 2016?

MoM was more entertaining that PoD, which was basically another Alpha Legion book. They sure had more presence than the IF, with a fancy plot twist at the end.

 

Like I said PoD was ok but didn't rock my world, but I didn't say PoH or MoM rocked my world aswell.

 

They were more entertaining for me as a reader.

 

And amazeballs? I expected better from you HeritorA xD

[HeritorA]

I thought Path of Heaven was good, but the latter part of the book felt a little bit too quickly paced for my liking. Still one of the best in 2016, I just like Praetorian of Dorn better. It struck good structural balance for me.

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

Interesting to know about 'why's' cause I have the same 'why's' myself

For me, Path of Heaven, Master of Mankind.

Praetorian of Dorn was ok but didn't rock my world.

Master of Mankind did? It is a good book - but the one to 'rock your world'? Can I as a humble reader ask you about the reasons beneath that? Just curious - what exactly 'amazeballs' was in MoM for you?

There's a difference in what I read in 2016 and what came out in 2016 so I'm trying to think but I did enjoy MoM. Though I feel like I need to listen to it again. Read Into Exile last week about Land and makes me want to go through it again. Maybe next week.

Gotta add Path of Heaven at least.

You haven't read Path of Heaven? Kenny how could you have missed the best novel of 2016?

MoM was more entertaining that PoD, which was basically another Alpha Legion book. They sure had more presence than the IF, with a fancy plot twist at the end.

Like I said PoD was ok but didn't rock my world, but I didn't say PoH or MoM rocked my world aswell.

They were more entertaining for me as a reader.

And amazeballs? I expected better from you HeritorA xD

You don't know even the range of good trolling this do for the 'Khalesi' fans

For the PoD - it is an amazing Alpha Legion novel which shows exactly what hubris and pride could do to all that 'planning/tactics'. Imperial Fists as a 'secondary' protagonists show the true meaning of stuborness and loyalty to ideals and an idol.

Master of Mankind on the other hand is a good but disjointed novel, which wouldhave been better released 6-8 books ago. It has it's moments Sete - but I'm truly curious about people honest thoughts on it

[Scribe]

Master of Mankind was great for its bluntness. Its directness in stating what exactly was at stake in the Great Crusade, what was at stake in the War in the Webway, and what the loss of that War means for humanity and the wider setting of 40K.

 

It was a great big neon arrow to a large segment of the fandom saying 'Actually folks, you missed this.'

 

Thats why I liked it.

 

EDIT: And further, it was quite clearly NEEDED because it never seemed to make waves in PoH, despite the same concepts and themes  throughout!

[Sete]

What i didnt like in PoD was the when in doubt stand your ground.

It just made the IF basic as :cuss, while Alpha legion danced around them.

[HeritorA]

What i didnt like in PoD was the when in doubt stand your ground.

It just made the IF basic as , while Alpha legion danced around them.

Yeah. At some point one were two smart, the other - too stubborn. Thats battle of 2 ideologies and stratagems for you.

[MrDarth151]

Master of Mankind was great for its bluntness. Its directness in stating what exactly was at stake in the Great Crusade, what was at stake in the War in the Webway, and what the loss of that War means for humanity and the wider setting of 40K.

It was a great big neon arrow to a large segment of the fandom saying 'Actually folks, you missed this.'

Thats why I liked it.

EDIT: And further, it was quite clearly NEEDED because it never seemed to make waves in PoH, despite the same concepts and themes throughout!

Well, Curze said that death was nothing when compared to vindication.

Interesting to know about 'why's' cause I have the same 'why's' myself

Well, there is a lot to it. No single thing caused it to it being bad in mind, but rather combination of it all.

Also, Zephon was cool. Made me wish I was reading a Blood Angels novella written by ADB instead.

But, as I said, this is neither here nor now. Let us drop it.

[HeritorA]

Master of Mankind was great for its bluntness. Its directness in stating what exactly was at stake in the Great Crusade, what was at stake in the War in the Webway, and what the loss of that War means for humanity and the wider setting of 40K.

It was a great big neon arrow to a large segment of the fandom saying 'Actually folks, you missed this.'

Thats why I liked it.

EDIT: And further, it was quite clearly NEEDED because it never seemed to make waves in PoH, despite the same concepts and themes throughout!

Well, Curze said that death was nothing when compared to vindication.

Interesting to know about 'why's' cause I have the same 'why's' myself

Well, there is a lot to it. No single thing caused it to it being bad in mind, but rather combination of it all.

Also, Zephon was cool. Made me wish I was reading a Blood Angels novella written by ADB instead.

But, as I said, this is neither here nor now. Let us drop it.

Ok, let's get back to the best of 2016!

P.S. Zephon was 'likeable' and totally Unblood Angel - but due to him being a chap comparing to the dick custodians.

By the way - A D-B custodiands totally one of the worst. Even knowing the hard battle they fought and their sacrifice - they are totally unlikeable

[A D-B]

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

 

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

 

My fave book this year was Ahriman: Exodus. I was late to the party on that one.

[Sete]

I actually didnt like Zephon at all.

And cmon the Custodes are the Companions of the greatest human being ever. They only answer to him. The Smug comes with the package. And not even considering they are better than the Astartes in every conceivable way.

I wonder how Wraight will depict them in the coming books.

[b1soul]

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

I'd actually like to read his review...hopefully it'll have some reasoned criticism beyond "the Emp is too despotic"...or if that remains the main criticism, I hope he fleshes it out

[MrDarth151]

 

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

 

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

 

I am mentioning it, because people have asked about my thoughts after I've read the book, and I want to make effort to actually make it properly, rather than just making another off-topic discussion that will inevitably lead to this thread being closed, so I am using it to stop the off-topic discussion before it begins a new.

 

An effort you are trying to impede right now, by making a post solely to mock everyone who dares not to enjoy your work.

 

And really? Shall we re-title the book "Fifty millions of Aaron Dembski-Bowden fans can't be wrong"? Just because many people like, it doesn't mean I have to like it as well. Indeed, it doesn't even speak to the quality of the book. It is one of the most basic logical fallacies, in fact. So spare me.

 

 

 

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

I'd actually like to read his review...hopefully it'll have some reasoned criticism beyond "the Emp is too despotic"...or if that remains the main criticism, I hope he fleshes it out

 

 

The Emperor being too despotic was never the criticism of the book in the first place.

[A D-B]

 

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

I'd actually like to read his review...hopefully it'll have some reasoned criticism beyond "the Emp is too despotic"...or if that remains the main criticism, I hope he fleshes it out

 

 

It's a truth of any fandom: those who talk loudest and longest will always get the most attention. I'm less worried about the review than I am the temptation to sandbox reply bit by bit trying to explain things in tedious futility. I'm pretty certain I'll resist (some voices even on the B&C are increasingly easy to ignore) but I know the temptation will be there.

 

 

 

An effort you are trying to impede right now, by making a post solely to mock everyone who dares not to enjoy your work.

 

And really? Shall we re-title the book "Fifty millions of Aaron Dembski-Bowden fans can't be wrong"? Just because many people like, it doesn't mean I have to like it as well. Indeed, it doesn't even speak to the quality of the book. It is one of the most basic logical fallacies, in fact. So spare me.

 

See what I mean? There's no way you can genuinely think that. Why don't I reply to countless other criticisms? Why is it specific ones, and only those, that I reply to? Your point is proven wrong literally by the evidence of how and what I post. I don't mock anyone who criticises my work. I don't reply to 99% of criticism. How am I - or anyone - supposed to give your attitude any credence when this is the toxic nonsense you spew?

 

Jesus, GW's own intellectual property editor shooting you down as consistently incorrect only made you double down, chief. You don't get to spin this as me being a jerk and keep a straight face.

[HeritorA]

Master of Mankind... I didn't like very much. But I'm writing a review of why at the moment, and that's neither here or now.

Shocking! Especially since you keep mentioning that review - no doubt to repeatedly foreshadow its eventual posting as being vital and important, right? The strangest thing about that book, for me, isn't the insane and overwhelming reception it's had so far (though that's terrifying and humbling in equal measure), it's the occasional voices just so honestly desperate to insist other people are missing the point, and repeatedly trying to tear it down. The bizarre zeal of those voices. The smug "Just you wait for my review"-ness and the disingenuous "I just can't understand why anyone would like it!"-ness of HeritorA (despite, y'know, many reviews or forum threads and Facebook threads where people list what they like about it in immense detail, many of which he posts in or is replying to as having read).

My fave book this year was Ahriman: Exodus. I was late to the party on that one.

Amazing book Exodus is as all the Trilogy by mister French. On the other hand A D-B even then we are rambling we try to show you what was 'not so good' etc. That's why I want to know 'why other people' do not like and what exactly is 'bad' for them in the good book.

The zeal through - tis overrated A D-B.

[MrDarth151]

 

See what I mean? There's no way you can genuinely think that. Why don't I reply to countless other criticisms? Why is it specific ones, and only those, that I reply to? Your point is proven wrong literally by the evidence of how and what I post. I don't mock anyone who criticises my work. I don't reply to 99% of criticism. How am I - or anyone - supposed to give your attitude any credence when this is the toxic nonsense you spew?

 

Jesus, GW's own intellectual property editor shooting you down as consistently incorrect only made you double down, chief. You don't get to spin this as me being a jerk and keep a straight face.

 

Yes, that was inconsiderate of me. You just find the idea of dissenting opinion "bizzare". I am sure that you meant to say that you value any and all opinions, not just the ones that claim that your book is good. The fact that you made a post solely to call the idea of not discussing criticism in the thread dedicated to best books of 2016, which is blantantly off-topic discussion smugness does not speak of your good intentions on the matter, good sir.

 

And my criticism of the book is not really focused on anything I discussed with mr. Goulding. Indeed, it just serves as a footnote, really. So perhaps you really should wait until you read what I have to say, before making your case against criticism I have never voiced.

[veterannoob]

Ahriman Exodus was 2016? Then it goes on the list. Doing shows with all the authors that are compilation shows blurs the lines.

[WarriorFish]

I'd say it's true of anything, not just a "fandom" - the loudest will always get the most attention. Conveniently that also includes the most attention from the moderati, so please be nice to each other. Disagreement is fine, but it must be kept respectful - sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and move on. Thanks.

[HeritorA]

I'd say it's true of anything, not just a "fandom" - the loudest will always get the most attention. Conveniently that also includes the most attention from the moderati, so please be nice to each other. Disagreement is fine, but it must be kept respectful - sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and move on. Thanks.

Agreed.

And we all love A D-B writing good stuff

[b1soul]

The Emperor being too despotic was never the criticism of the book in the first place.

Wasn't a main criticism the Emperor's emphasis of water theft over mass murder as a crime deserving execution?

 

Perhaps too "callous toward human life" would more accurately describe your objection?