Tight Editorial and Linear Narrative: A Discussion

[Roomsky]

So I've seen a few posts lately about how one of The Beast Arises' biggest successes is telling a (comparatively) tight narrative, being praised for its consistent release schedule and lack of fluff compared to something like the Horus Heresy series.

 

I have a few problems with that, and I'm interested to hear all of your opinions as well.

 

While I enjoy The Beast Arises quite a bit, I find it far too limiting a release strategy. The more on-rails narrative is nice, but I think its far too on rails. In my honest opinion, thebooks have very little value on their own. As a series, sure, they are quite enjoyable, but they have no purpose beyond advancing the story, and they have very little flavor of their own. 

 

Sci-fi is at its best when it uses the fantastic to reveal things about humanity. The Horus Heresy series certainly does this, I can hop right into The First Heretic to learn not only about Lorgar, but also how unexpected personal betrayal can affect someone. I can read Prospero Burns as not only an account of one of The Imperium's earliest blunders and a compelling story of loss, intrigue, and the adoption of culture. These books have flavor. They stand on their own two feet. You could read them on their own and still enjoy them.

 

But I can't just jump into Throneworld and appreciate Vangorich. I would know nothing about him, and the book doesn't work too hard to tell me. The best I could learn about is how some Eldar broke into the Imperial Palace that one time. The First Heretic is a good book. Throneworld is a strong part of a series. And I'll always take the former over the latter.

 

Do you prefer more direction but less freedom, or vice versa? Maybe something in between? Discuss.

 

Also, this is not about anthologies, or the release policy thereof. There's another thread for that.

[HeritorA]

More direction but less freedom. But at the same time it's shouldn't be a chronological chronicle - we have Codexes for that

[Roomsky]

More direction but less freedom. But at the same time it's shouldn't be a chronological chronicle - we have Codexes for that

 

Come on Heri, I know you're passionate about this stuff, give me a little more to work with here. If nothing else, I know you didn't like several entries in The Beast Arises; what would you see improved if BL were to do another similar project?

[R_F_D]

I wonder whether that, given the documented "freedom" of the HH, one of the pluses to a lot of people who read BL was the focused narrative of TBA.  I haven't read it so can't comment too much but it strikes me that if the writing is good enough (subjective I know; but as Roomsky says, no diatribes please) and the plots interesting enough the onus is on the reader to go back to book 1.  I know this thread is a general one but TBA was clearly numbered?

 

Sci-fi is at its best when it uses the fantastic to reveal things about humanity. The Horus Heresy series certainly does this, I can hop right into The First Heretic to learn not only about Lorgar, but also how unexpected personal betrayal can affect someone. I can read Prospero Burns as not only an account of one of The Imperium's earliest blunders and a compelling story of loss, intrigue, and the adoption of culture. These books have flavor. They stand on their own two feet. You could read them on their own and still enjoy them.

 

I think you could same the same thing about the Gaunt's Ghosts but I think they are so much better if you know the characters and have gone on the journey with them.  Straight Silver, at its most basic level, for example; stand alone grim-dark trench warfare book but read books 1-5 before it and you know that this is virtually a slow meat grind/death by a thousand cuts for the Ghosts.  

 

Whether this can truly be applied to the Horus Heresy given the behemoth it is, is a matter of debate, and I think Laurie addressed the potential for dipping in and out somewhere else. 

[HeritorA]

 

More direction but less freedom. But at the same time it's shouldn't be a chronological chronicle - we have Codexes for that

 

Come on Heri, I know you're passionate about this stuff, give me a little more to work with here. If nothing else, I know you didn't like several entries in The Beast Arises; what would you see improved if BL were to do another similar project?

 

Pacing, authors and creating an interesting villain for starters ;)

[Jim Shady]

 

More direction but less freedom. But at the same time it's shouldn't be a chronological chronicle - we have Codexes for that

 

Come on Heri, I know you're passionate about this stuff, give me a little more to work with here. If nothing else, I know you didn't like several entries in The Beast Arises; what would you see improved if BL were to do another similar project?

 

 

And anything involving the geezars from Fenris :D

[Xisor]

In some respects, I think the objective of the Beast Arises was absolutely sound. I'm immensely pleased they did it.

 

However, there was plenty of problems with the series. I think it's the gulf between intended selling point and actual selling point that is problematic.

 

They've tried to focus on the story being a rip-roaring yarn, leaping A to B to C.

 

In the first three novels, they manage that quite soundly. 

 

I Am Slaughter sets up the setting - ultimately peaceful, almost complacent, very political-bureaucratic. So far so good. Very 'high level', but also a fairly personal tail with Koorland. Ends on a catastrophic bombshell.

Predator, Prey now it pans out. You get a sweeping view, albeit through three focused pieces, of 'holy hell, everything is kicking off!'

The Emperor Expects we get a valiant return-punch; a big struggle to reinforce things and recover, and a heavy dose of will-they won't-they.

 

All very good. The problem, even at this early stage, is that the wheels had started to come off. TEE was an excellent novel, but it also was a much slower book. The 'skip from A to B to C' wasn't there, because we were much more involved in this novel's actual Protagonist. Not shocking, sweeping developments viewed from here, there and everywhere... but suddenly we're settling into what could probably be the most stand-alone of the series.

 

What worked well in the first two, and what made the series so much fun in principle (and kept a good deal of that fun in execution, but not as good as you'd want if they do it again!) throughout is that a lot of the time simply wasn't being spent developing things.

 

Characters get very brief moments to develop. Any given sequence can only really be parts of a discussion, with the view of the character casting just enough insight forward/backwards in time (or through reports to get news 'in the background' of what's going on). Their action has to take place in a very small time frame. The scenes chosen have to be exquisitely targeted to give the biggest, most heart-wrenching punch to the gut.. otherwise we're often left twiddling our thumbs.

 

Of course, some have to be red-herrings. But it means that the authors and editors would have to be extraordinarily judicious about what gets kept in place and what gets left out.

 

As readers, we shouldn't resent their go-nowhere, slow sequences - we should positively miss them! Because the feel of the series should be rip-roaring, boggling. But they should be entirely curated. Kept in only where absolutely delicious, otherwise they get chopped.

 

---

 

To that end, I think it almost needs to be worked backwards. Orchestrated & choreographed, with authors and editors joyfully getting their hands very bloody indeed as they cut cut cut. Not that I think they should overwork themselves, but there's a sense in producing a lot more, then picking only the top 10%. Release space short stories, directors cuts, out-takes, deleted scenes, all those sorts of lovely doo-dahs. 

 

But, as you rightly say, Roomsky there should be a tight narrative to the whole thing too. 

 

If anything, I think the big mistakes in TBA come mainly from the meandering focus. As if it's been plotted & assigned "You have to get us A to B, you have to get us B to C, you have to get us C to D...' etc. That might work in a flawless, technical capacity (think modular, atomic programming - all the component pieces fit together, but are the individual component pieces what's truly needed? What if you're repeating scenes on the journey from A to B and E to F? [Or in the Beast Arises, repeating the almost the same entire plot to Ullanor, to Ullanor, to Ullanor!])

 

If it's all divided up neatly, authors might well feel like they're able to 'focus on making E to F the best E to F they can!', but if they're constrained for space - how do they approach it? None of these authors or editors, that I know, have cut their teeth on this sort of thing. Hell, style of a well done TV series is probably about right - so look at Game of the Thrones - they have entire Dorne sequences. So it's not like this is damning criticism for the BL authors - they did a stellar job in this experiment, it yielded fascinating and valuable results. I really liked reading them!

 

But, there's huge lessons to learn in hear too. Is the objective they set out to achieve the right one? Should they have been looking at short, pithy, gripping novels? Or should they have been looking at a more integrated collaboration across bigger novels? (I like to imagine what the series would have been like as a six-novel one, one every two months, each author does one. A bad game of whispers, a la the rumours about Galaxy in Flames?)

 

Personally, I liked it. I'd almost kill to become dictator in a scenario where I could compel the authors to redo the experiment. Same setup, same objective but with freedom to collaborate more, or just to revise their decisions. Who knows what got caught for reasons of brevity?

 

---

 

Well, we actually do know. I'm sure Laurie mentioned that, early on, it wasn't going to be the Sisters of Silence that were dug-up out of the dusty Second Hand Shops of eternity. Rather: it was going to be the Legion Cybernetica (or somesuch). Outlawed after the Horus Heresy for being too close to AI, but brought back in from the cold in time to save the Imperium...

 

You get the idea.

 

---

 

Xisor's Revision Wishlist

 

1- I'd love to have seen the Harlequins/Eldar more intimately involved.

2- I'd love for them to have been really vicious in cutting out 'characterless' fight sequences. Fast-cut into the action then out again for the key moment, but absolutely no need to have endless ork-slaying (unless it's to make a point, and it'd better be a good point!). Hell, just background it more. <SCENE: It's a fight scene the likes hasn't been seen since the Horus Heresy on Terra... but right now we're focussed on a bit of politicking between the Master of the Telepaths and the Paternoval Envoy>

3- Logical errors/u-wot-m8s? With the more boring bolter-porn sequences judiciously remove (if not the catastrophe, keep a lot of that!), more throwaway lines can be devoted to things like "The Phalanx was lost." <eleven books later> "I think we can salvage tha". Or make a big song and dance out of it - for a while Koorland's 'Imperial Fists Chapter' is almost entirely made up of Apothecaries, Techmarines and Scouts; and not all of them originally Imperial Fists! 

 

 

Well, that's enough to be getting on with. 

[HeritorA]

 

More direction but less freedom. But at the same time it's shouldn't be a chronological chronicle - we have Codexes for that

 

Come on Heri, I know you're passionate about this stuff, give me a little more to work with here. If nothing else, I know you didn't like several entries in The Beast Arises; what would you see improved if BL were to do another similar project?

 

 

So, in my humble opinion:

 

1) They should stop plot-armoring one side and downgrading another exclusively for new releases. Because previously amazingly written characters in a year time slowly goes into the range of the boys for the beating (tau and space wolves (we are big boys so I will leave 'puppies' stuff out of the threads for now) are the best example. They should struggle, die and became grim and fatigued as everyone else).

 

2) Authors should have more freedom to create their own characters (it's a colossal universe) - there are a lot of humans/xenos/posthumans to select from.  They should give only small amount of time for the famous persons (who is let's be honest unkillable as hell) - Grimnar, Ragnar, Korda, Zaraphiston, Creed etc. And all other time should go with character building. It would be highest praise to the author if we would love his book and his newly created characters - that would mean he did a very hard job by creating a belivable and interesting character/war etc.

 

3) I do understand that it's a tabletop to models to supplements to books to games to etc. business. But written stuff should have a 'soul'. It's not a toilet newspaper to read. Instead sometimes then another supplement or campaign book or BL novel arrive it's like you are reading a political manifest... Just look at Techpriest duology - it was written exclusively to run with the release of new Skitarii and tech-priests range. But both novellas are ... Then look at all the horrible 'Damocles' stuff which was written to show how MIGHTY tau new models are... (That's why 'Storm of Damocles' from Justin Hill is so epicly good - for once mighty toys loose clearing the place for a story). But we have another side of the coin at the same time (mostly I think that's simply an exclusion of a rule) - Peter Fehervari's stories.  His 'Fire and Ice' novella is the best thing that ever happened to prose from BL in 'Damocles' section of W40K. Also just look at his 'Genestealers Cult' novel to run with a Genestealers Cults codex and model range. That novel has it's own 'soul' and you simply can't put it down. Can you say the same about a lot of BL books?

So again- give more freedom to the author. You could create an awesome self-sufficient story which everyone love and will by the models the author depicted jus ton 1 page. Instead usually we get a lot of bolter porn and new models shooting down old ones...

And can't miss Dan Abnett here - he is the case why you should and should not give freelance author too much freedom. Yes mostly his stories are beyond godlike (under strict editorial control). Ghosts, Inquisitor, HH  - they are truly awesome. But how many plot/lore/discrepancies holes he created while writing a good adventure/gothic sci-fi/fairy tale book?

 

4) As for the TBA directly - the storyline was meticuously planned and executed during long years for the distant future release. And even through all the planning - postponing the serie and bad editorial work lead to some horrible mistakes, plotholes, simply dull narrative and bad storytelling experience. Books like 'The Last Wall' or 'Echoes of the Long war' or 'Hunt for Vulkan' should never have been written. Same as 'Shadow of Ullanor' which simply a more dull copy of 'The Last son of Dorn'  and contained a lot of mistakes in my ebook version... But at the same time - TBA as I mentioned above was meticuously planned for a long time. Then why did it had so many bad sides?

I will tell you - it had strict control, but who controlled the controlling ones? I think if Haley or Sanders had more freedom they would have woven a much more interesting stories in itself.  

[Roomsky]

Xisor for Dictator 2017!

 

Great point about the lack of slower moments, Xisor. I enjoy the "new characters" per book well enough, they aren't incompetently written, but there wasn't much more to them than "hey, this guy's pretty alright!" I feel I should have felt a bit more when the pregnant woman detonated a virus bomb because they knew help wasn't coming.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't have objected to seeing 32k as a semi-setting. Have Predator, Prey, for example, be all about a desperate and hopeless war against the Orks. Have it show us how ill-equipped Terra is to respond. Have it show us the hopelessness of fighting the green tide. Have it show us the new technologies the Orks have harnessed, and how they boggle prediction and belief. Everything Predator, Prey accomplished could have been done so in its own story, with its own themes.

 

Not that I'm saying their shouldn't be repeat characters. Have a few Vangorich books. Have a few Koorland books. They just don't all need to be in every book. The same pacing and tightness could still be achieved with each work becoming their own thing, as well.

[Apothecary Vaddon]

The Horus Heresy doesn't just reveal things about humanity, it also has a lot of ... waffles. Substance without meaning. What is the purpose of Battle of the Abyss, for example? Not to say that the HH doesn't have great novels in it, it does, but TBA had a set date that it would begin and end and we all knew that, so any problems with non-advancement of plot lines and open threads, which we've seen in a couple instances with the HH (I mean, boy, did Imperium Secundus fizzle for me ... decent novels, but I feel like similar plots could've been written with completely different scenarios that were more intriguing) and lack of expectation. Of course, part of that comes from the fact that it spans a multi-year event that covered the entire galaxy, whereas TBA lasted all of ... well, something like a year or so from Adamantura to the Final final final assault on Ullanor. 

TBA did have it's issues, and a lot of them are what you've already outlined in the OP - as standalone books, they're not very sturdy at all, but as a series of somewhat shorter novels, I liked it a lot more than I like what the HH has turned into.

Ideally, I think I would've liked a couple of TBA-esque (rectifying the lack of standalone content) series that fit within the HH setting. That's armchair quarterbacking at this point, though, with the benefit of hindsight. 

[Roomsky]

The Horus Heresy doesn't just reveal things about humanity, it also has a lot of ... waffles. Substance without meaning. What is the purpose of Battle of the Abyss, for example? Not to say that the HH doesn't have great novels in it, it does, but TBA had a set date that it would begin and end and we all knew that, so any problems with non-advancement of plot lines and open threads, which we've seen in a couple instances with the HH (I mean, boy, did Imperium Secundus fizzle for me ... decent novels, but I feel like similar plots could've been written with completely different scenarios that were more intriguing) and lack of expectation. Of course, part of that comes from the fact that it spans a multi-year event that covered the entire galaxy, whereas TBA lasted all of ... well, something like a year or so from Adamantura to the Final final final assault on Ullanor. 

TBA did have it's issues, and a lot of them are what you've already outlined in the OP - as standalone books, they're not very sturdy at all, but as a series of somewhat shorter novels, I liked it a lot more than I like what the HH has turned into.

Ideally, I think I would've liked a couple of TBA-esque (rectifying the lack of standalone content) series that fit within the HH setting. That's armchair quarterbacking at this point, though, with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

While the series certainly doesn't, individual books do. Something like The Beast Arises, assuming it follows the same structure, would be almost incapable of doing so. Books can't be metaphor, or an elongated allusion. They are too contingent. The worst of the Heresy is certainly poorer than the worst of the Beast, but the best are miles ahead of anything the Beast Arises was able to produce. Lack of momentum is certainly a problem, I think 30k should have just been a setting from the start TBH, but I certainly don't mind as much. Difference of priorities, I suppose.

[MrDarth151]

 

And can't miss Dan Abnett here - he is the case why you should and should not give freelance author too much freedom. Yes mostly his stories are beyond godlike (under strict editorial control). Ghosts, Inquisitor, HH  - they are truly awesome. But how many plot/lore/discrepancies holes he created while writing a good adventure/gothic sci-fi/fairy tale book?

 

About the same number as any other author?

 

The thing is, consistency was never a strong suit of 40k. And that's good. It adds to mysticism of the universe, it creates a wider appeal towards audiences and it enriches the setting by making it more varied.

[A D-B]

 

 

And can't miss Dan Abnett here - he is the case why you should and should not give freelance author too much freedom. Yes mostly his stories are beyond godlike (under strict editorial control). Ghosts, Inquisitor, HH  - they are truly awesome. But how many plot/lore/discrepancies holes he created while writing a good adventure/gothic sci-fi/fairy tale book?

 

About the same number as any other author?

 

There's no way to hold that as an informed opinion. I adore Dan's work, and he knows it well. I take a day off every time he releases a book, so I can read it, and his inbox is frequently backed up with begging messages from me to read his drafts. But Dan famously writes in "the Daniverse" - a term he smilingly uses himself - which is a lore pocket and perspective unique to him: largely formed because for so long he was Black Library, and there was far less concern over meshing up with the Studio/Forge World/old lore, etc.

 

He's not lazy in his research (I know full well he does a huge amount of it, as I've watched him doing it) and he's respectful of other authors, but there's no way to claim with a straight face that every author makes roughly the same number of lore inconsistencies. The Inquisition doesn't function the way it's depicted in Eisenhorn and Ravenor (to the point that licensees and authors are told not to emulate certain elements of the hierarchy and structure of the =][= in those books) but that doesn't stop them being some of the greatest fiction ever released by the BL - and, interestingly, for the readership to consider it the pinnacle and primer of Inquisition lore. His lasguns and plasma guns don't function the way they're classically described as functioning in the lore, either. I could go on, but since it's such a famous point, I'm surprised it needed mentioning at all.

 

Now, I make no bones about whether any conflicting version of lore or "fact" is better than any other, because that's not the point and it doesn't matter. But there's a reason "the Daniverse" is common parlance in Dan-based discussions, yet there's no Grahamverse or ADBverse or ChrisWraightverse as famous phrases.

[R_F_D]

 

He's not lazy in his research (I know full well he does a huge amount of it, as I've watched him doing it) and he's respectful of other authors, but there's no way to claim with a straight face that every author makes roughly the same number of lore inconsistencies. The Inquisition doesn't function the way it's depicted in Eisenhorn and Ravenor (to the point that licensees and authors are told not to emulate certain elements of the hierarchy and structure of the =][= in those books) but that doesn't stop them being some of the greatest fiction ever released by the BL - and, interestingly, for the readership to consider it the pinnacle and primer of Inquisition lore. His lasguns and plasma guns don't function the way they're classically described as functioning in the lore, either. I could go on, but since it's such a famous point, I'm surprised it needed mentioning at all.

 

 

 

I thought Xenos was meant to be a tie in to the Inquisitor game when it was first released?  

However what A D-B said, everything that A D-B just said.

[DukeLeto69]

 

 

 

And can't miss Dan Abnett here - he is the case why you should and should not give freelance author too much freedom. Yes mostly his stories are beyond godlike (under strict editorial control). Ghosts, Inquisitor, HH  - they are truly awesome. But how many plot/lore/discrepancies holes he created while writing a good adventure/gothic sci-fi/fairy tale book?

 

 

About the same number as any other author?

 

There's no way to hold that as an informed opinion. I adore Dan's work, and he knows it well. I take a day off every time he releases a book, so I can read it, and his inbox is frequently backed up with begging messages from me to read his drafts. But Dan famously writes in "the Daniverse" - a term he smilingly uses himself - which is a lore pocket and perspective unique to him: largely formed because for so long he was Black Library, and there was far less concern over meshing up with the Studio/Forge World/old lore, etc.

 

He's not lazy in his research (I know full well he does a huge amount of it, as I've watched him doing it) and he's respectful of other authors, but there's no way to claim with a straight face that every author makes roughly the same number of lore inconsistencies. The Inquisition doesn't function the way it's depicted in Eisenhorn and Ravenor (to the point that licensees and authors are told not to emulate certain elements of the hierarchy and structure of the =][= in those books) but that doesn't stop them being some of the greatest fiction ever released by the BL - and, interestingly, for the readership to consider it the pinnacle and primer of Inquisition lore. His lasguns and plasma guns don't function the way they're classically described as functioning in the lore, either. I could go on, but since it's such a famous point, I'm surprised it needed mentioning at all.

 

Now, I make no bones about whether any conflicting version of lore or "fact" is better than any other, because that's not the point and it doesn't matter. But there's a reason "the Daniverse" is common parlance in Dan-based discussions, yet there's no Grahamverse or ADBverse or ChrisWraightverse as famous phrases.

But we need more Dan in our Black Library lives ADB! We just do! Can't you send him an email complaining that (in terms of BL work) he is stealing your crown for being slow at getting his next book out! Can't you just plead with him to stop with all that comics nonesense and get back to some real quality IP fiction and bloomin well finish Warmaster (and in the process allow poor Mr Farrer's tie in SMB book a release too).

 

Come on ADB use some of your muscle and inner sanctum goodness to help us out here :-)

[helterskelter]

No we don't need more Dan. We need variety so things don't go stale, and some proper organisation apparently because from what I've seen people say about the beast arises there is nothing inspiring me to buy the series.

[bluntblade]

Can someone explain the GoF and whisper games comment?

[Petitioner's City]

 

 

 

 

And can't miss Dan Abnett here - he is the case why you should and should not give freelance author too much freedom. Yes mostly his stories are beyond godlike (under strict editorial control). Ghosts, Inquisitor, HH - they are truly awesome. But how many plot/lore/discrepancies holes he created while writing a good adventure/gothic sci-fi/fairy tale book?

About the same number as any other author?

There's no way to hold that as an informed opinion. I adore Dan's work, and he knows it well. I take a day off every time he releases a book, so I can read it, and his inbox is frequently backed up with begging messages from me to read his drafts. But Dan famously writes in "the Daniverse" - a term he smilingly uses himself - which is a lore pocket and perspective unique to him: largely formed because for so long he was Black Library, and there was far less concern over meshing up with the Studio/Forge World/old lore, etc.

 

He's not lazy in his research (I know full well he does a huge amount of it, as I've watched him doing it) and he's respectful of other authors, but there's no way to claim with a straight face that every author makes roughly the same number of lore inconsistencies. The Inquisition doesn't function the way it's depicted in Eisenhorn and Ravenor (to the point that licensees and authors are told not to emulate certain elements of the hierarchy and structure of the =][= in those books) but that doesn't stop them being some of the greatest fiction ever released by the BL - and, interestingly, for the readership to consider it the pinnacle and primer of Inquisition lore. His lasguns and plasma guns don't function the way they're classically described as functioning in the lore, either. I could go on, but since it's such a famous point, I'm surprised it needed mentioning at all.

 

Now, I make no bones about whether any conflicting version of lore or "fact" is better than any other, because that's not the point and it doesn't matter. But there's a reason "the Daniverse" is common parlance in Dan-based discussions, yet there's no Grahamverse or ADBverse or ChrisWraightverse as famous phrases.

The thing is, as you say, it's just so good. A resource everyone draws on. Something the majority seem to love, appreciate or feel a instinctive or intellectual appreciation of. And I rather like how the woekd functions according to Dan, and I think you and others in BL mesh well with.

 

But of course 40k is not just game, made by different generations at the studio (from priestly & chambers to Thorpe, pirenen & alessio, haine, the long run of Phil, that controversial ultramaeine man memed to hell, Alan & others) and it's also players, whose role is key too. Nevertheless he is one of the modern cornerstones of 40k. Lore isn't wrong in him - lore is fluid, but I'm always annoyed people want to say Dan did things wrong rather than see these as opportunities as much as bodygloves, voxes, alternate chaos engines, amazing warlords, ranks, weapons, societies, aliens, and all the other things he added to or created in 40k shared universe.

 

I don't see contradiction, I see expansion and the ambiguity of language & what a term can mean (the speeder bikes in xenos, for example - although such bikes were also found in necromubda ash wastes).

 

And there is definitely an ADB verse. Ragnar & grimy are - through lore revisions - more overt parts of it ;p I jest, but also I'm serious. 40k is a bit like TOS treklit, it can be related, but there are also overt individual interpretations - or as I term it, 'expansions'.

[Sothalor]

The ADB-verse is the one where the protagonist Marines are conflicted standouts from their archetypal Legions/Chapters/Warbands and have borderline tender relationships with odd mortals who themselves are in various states of alienation and isolation and view said Astartes protagonist with a mixture of awe, pity, and loyalty while they antagonistically bond before the story culminates in a point where the inevitable loss of one or the other triggers a point of no return.

Or put another way that seems to make his eyebrows twitch, "waifus."

[DukeLeto69]

No we don't need more Dan. We need variety so things don't go stale, and some proper organisation apparently because from what I've seen people say about the beast arises there is nothing inspiring me to buy the series.

Yes we do need more Dan (actually we just need some Dan in BL) but we also need more ADB, French, Wraight, Farrer and Fehervari so agree on the variety thing. Less bolter porn and more interesting character driven stories with complex themes.

[helterskelter]

 

No we don't need more Dan. We need variety so things don't go stale, and some proper organisation apparently because from what I've seen people say about the beast arises there is nothing inspiring me to buy the series.

Yes we do need more Dan (actually we just need some Dan in BL) but we also need more ADB, French, Wraight, Farrer and Fehervari so agree on the variety thing. Less bolter porn and more interesting character driven stories with complex themes.

Probably should have mentioned I'm not a Dan fan. Unremembered Empire had convenient after convenient escape and so much moustache twirling you could call Curze, Dick Dastardly.

In terms of what's left in the heresy I assume it's all nicely planned out who is doing what so I'll take what I'm given, as long as what's next from him is better for me.

[A D-B]

Humour aside, there's a difference between what's being said, and what "The Daniverse" is. Cornwell and Gemmell and Hobb write similar themes and formulas in many of their novels, which I daresay I do, as well, since there are certain themes that interest me more than others. But none of the examples being given, even in jest, are anything like "the ADBverse" - they're narrative themes and tropes. 

 

"The Daniverse" is an established thing, noted for its differences in actual 40K lore (and often, if you ask me, its improvements and additions). Like lasguns and plasma guns having different functions, and so on. The difference is that (for better or worse) the IP department wouldn't say to a licencee "Don't depict it the way Aaron does in his novels as it's not technically true to the lore." But that does happen with some of Dan's work, which I suspect delights him immensely, wonderful dude that he is. Sometimes he adds to the lore as a pillar of creating the IP over the last 15 years, and sometimes he goes against it (usually intentionally, I'd wager, though I wouldn't want to speak for him).

 

Just wanted to reiterate that amidst the giggles before it inevitably gets missed. You can joke about one, because of a few similar themes. You can actually Google the other and find it at the core of many, many discussions, and that author is renowned for sometimes expanding, sometimes contradicting, the lore.

[Loesh]

It is kind of funny, because many of the people in my personal lore circle adhere to Dan almost religiously(And with good reason, he's a fantastic author. My favorite version of Horus is forever Dan Abnett's Horus.) and it's almost a shame his universe isn't as closely tied to the collective whole as some other authors might be considered to be. 

 

Almost being the key word, having the freedom to explore sometimes isn't as valuable as a structured universe.

[RapatoR]

...since there are certain themes that interest me more than others...

 

Ok since you are here I just got to ask: Why are so many headaches in your novels? :)

[bluntblade]

To be fair, headaches are probably to be expected when characters are fighting for days on end.