Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or, y'know, maybe different people have different definitions and understandings of what a "bad book" is, considering that literature, much like any form of art, is subject to very subjective views and lenses?
  On 5/17/2017 at 8:29 PM, The Observer said:

Or, y'know, maybe different people have different definitions and understandings of what a "bad book" is, considering that literature, much like any form of art, is subject to very subjective views and lenses?

and age and level of study and the fact that human being by default has a beautiful brain which humans use so rarely?

Sarcasm - just if someone would mistake that by aggressive behavior, lol. Nowdays you need to explain everything to everyone. No more mysteries in the literature - it's all should be explained to reader!

  On 5/18/2017 at 1:58 PM, HeritorA said:

 

  On 5/17/2017 at 8:29 PM, The Observer said:

 

Or, y'know, maybe different people have different definitions and understandings of what a "bad book" is, considering that literature, much like any form of art, is subject to very subjective views and lenses?

and age and level of study and the fact that human being by default has a beautiful brain which humans use so rarely?

Sarcasm - just if someone would mistake that by aggressive behavior, lol. Nowdays you need to explain everything to everyone. No more mysteries in the literature - it's all should be explained to reader!

To humour your argument, that everything needs to be explained that is, let's ask the question; Why is that objectively bad? Some people like to read more in depth explanations about their favorite settings, some don't. Before watching the Star Wars prequells, I was wondering where exactly the Force came from. The prequells adressed this with the Midi Chlorians. Was I happy? No. Was it a particularly good explanation? Not for me, no. But as they say, Nothing ventured is nothing gained.

There are a few writers of the 20th century that wrote painstakingly detailed and explained everything along the way, yet still the books turned out to be fantastic literature. Max Frisch's Homo Faber and Ivo Andrić's Na Drini Ćuprija comes to mind, both excellent, tremendous books that refuse to leave anything out. There are also examples of such writing in modern fantastical fiction (the aforementioned books are literary fiction, respectively partially historical fiction and not true works of fantasy or sci fi), you just have to turn your eyes towards Sanderson or Walter Moehrs. Explaining stuff or shining more and more light on settings and fiction is not "dumbing it down" because you didn't understand anything more before, thus it can't have taken more brainpower to understand the setting. There are such things as "good" and "bad" explanations however, the act of divulging the setting's secret has to be approached delicately, as it can potentially leave many people dissatisfied (see Midi Chlorians or the whole play of Harry Potter and The Cursed Child) OR it can have quite a positive reaction (See Brecht's Dreigroschenroman as a sequel to the Threepenny Opera). Again, this is subject to many subjective criteria and there is no universally right way of approaching it as it largely varies from fanbase to fanbase, setting to setting and author to author.

It is also bogus that everything should always be explained to everyone nowadays. Tolkien and Lovecraft are insanely popular nowadays and both thrive on mystery and while both are nearly century old literature at this point, the consumer wouldn't read an old text if it weren't palatable to its contemporary mind. Are you to suggest then, that Tolkien and Lovecraft have explained everything there is to explain in their texts? We also have the Witcher saga, the short stories and novels that is, Die Zwerge, the Alien franchise is getting a fresh breath of air, etc. Etc. To say that everything has to be explained nowadays is nonsense, considering that there is both evidence to the contrary and that such broad generalizations hold little to no merit, especially in discussions concerning literature or a body of text.

Totally off topic but I don't think they have mentioned mediclorians since (thank goodness)

 

For me it would be a similar fail if GW decided it was something in your blood that decided how strong a psykers you were. It's much better being a mysterious link to your soul.

Midichlorians were brought up in The Clone Wars, and chronologically last in Revenge of the Sith. It may be that they were mentioned in passing in one of the new canon comics or novels, but if so, I cannot remember.

 

If Heritor is actually arguing in favor of everything getting explained, then that would go heavily contrary to his appreciation of Peter Fehervari's excellent stories, where most deeper themes are left to the reader to connect and explore.

  On 5/19/2017 at 10:50 AM, DarkChaplain said:

Midichlorians were brought up in The Clone Wars, and chronologically last in Revenge of the Sith. It may be that they were mentioned in passing in one of the new canon comics or novels, but if so, I cannot remember.

 

If Heritor is actually arguing in favor of everything getting explained, then that would go heavily contrary to his appreciation of Peter Fehervari's excellent stories, where most deeper themes are left to the reader to connect and explore.

In that case you are being dishonest - cause Peter writing is 'outside' the usual BL range. Mostly cause it's much better than everything BL wrote...

 

The Observer

I do enjoy our lovely discussions :wink: Partly you are right.

But as for the 'We also have the Witcher saga, the short stories and novels that is, Die Zwerge, the Alien franchise is getting a fresh breath of air, etc. Etc. To say that everything has to be explained nowadays is nonsense, considering that there is both evidence to the contrary and that such broad generalizations hold little to no merit, especially in discussions concerning literature or a body of text.'

- on Witcher I will definitely agree. As for the Alien - in that case I can't agree because in movie scope with Prometheus and Covenant which are beyond horrible it is went in horrible downslide for me.

 

To be more precise to the thread context: Was I interested in Tallarn - sure, it's awesome HH moment. Was I happy with how it was written - yes and no. Yes - cause both Executioner and Ironclad were amazing. And no - cause I was expecting a full novel with why it all started and why it's all ended that way - instead I get a conglomerate of shorts and novellas. Does this make written by John bad? Of course not. Does Tallarn re-release under #45 makes me happy - NO. Cause I'm tired of re-released and recycled stuff released again and again and again.

But that we already discussed.

  On 5/17/2017 at 4:09 PM, HeritorA said:

 

Guys and let's be honest - you hate bad books yourself. You simply are too 'conformist' to tell the critic to the authors.

 

 

This brings to mind two quotes. The first is EVERY SINGLE unpleasant person you could ever meet in your life, the kind of person who says "I just tell it like it is, if you don't like it then that's your problem!" Because these people have NO FRIENDS, and everyone wishes they would go away because they are vacuums of enthusiasm and politeness.

 

The second quote is from me. I've been trying to get it some more traction by bringing it up every so often in online "discussions":

'If you didn't BUY a thing with your own money, and you didn't READ/WATCH/LISTEN TO the whole thing first, then you don't get to COMMENT on the thing.'

Amazon and eBay has tricked the audiences for books, movies and music into thinking that they are all critics whose opinions deserve to be heard, in as unvarnished and direct a manner as possible.

  On 5/22/2017 at 7:11 PM, LaurieJGoulding said:

 

  On 5/17/2017 at 4:09 PM, HeritorA said:

 

Guys and let's be honest - you hate bad books yourself. You simply are too 'conformist' to tell the critic to the authors.

 

 

This brings to mind two quotes. The first is EVERY SINGLE unpleasant person you could ever meet in your life, the kind of person who says "I just tell it like it is, if you don't like it then that's your problem!" Because these people have NO FRIENDS, and everyone wishes they would go away because they are vacuums of enthusiasm and politeness.

 

The second quote is from me. I've been trying to get it some more traction by bringing it up every so often in online "discussions":

'If you didn't BUY a thing with your own money, and you didn't READ/WATCH/LISTEN TO the whole thing first, then you don't get to COMMENT on the thing.'

Amazon and eBay has tricked the audiences for books, movies and music into thinking that they are all critics whose opinions deserve to be heard, in as unvarnished and direct a manner as possible.

 

I couldn't agree more. You know that I want the best for the authors. Sadly my expectations were shattered a lot in recent years. Partly with what was going on with BL.

Partly due to Abnett delays. Partly cause then you get to the point - you read everything from the publisher and you see old stuff being re-released again and again - that make you said.

At least now - with the resheduling and more writers/editors involment it goes the right way. But - it is not where yet.

 

As ever - thank you for your insight Laurie. It is always a joy to see you and A D-B here (even if you hate me) :wink:

I like the idea of the Watch Packs as a warning system...not as a "10 SW have a realistic chance of killing a primarch" system.

 

I do think it would have made perhaps a bit more sense for the Emp to send elite Custodian warriors (maybe even a few Tribunes) to shadow the primarchs

 

...but the Emp and his 10,000 were pre-occupied and Malc only had the SW at his disposal.

 

I like the Watch Packs as a plot hook as well. Inter-Legion secondment is a very cool idea...and the Watch Packs could be viewed as a very interesting variant of that.

 

For example...how would the DA or WS treat SW watchers?

Aside from the general tag that SW's were the Emperor's executioners, could it be Custodians weren't used as they were more likely to have interacted with a Primarch when they were first discovered and therefore there would be an innate respect there that the SW's simply wouldn't have. I'm thinking First Heretic here.
Yeah reading again now. The custodes definitely view the Primarchs and SMs as a miserable failure. The interaction of Ra (main Custodes) with Dorn highlight that. To me it seems like the book makes a point that the SMs serve the Imperium (Great Crusade) while the Custodes serve the Emperor first and foremost. Aside from tying with Manus as biggest tight ass not super likable but at least kick some ass
  On 5/24/2017 at 6:41 AM, b1soul said:

The Custodes are not especially respectful toward the primarchs

1) If the Wolves or Custodes wanted respect - they should have behaved better.

2) Custodes in general are 'dicks' (whatever novel you will read - or Haley, or Bowden they are shown as epic 'dicks') - for which there is a big reason. But a lot of people simply does not get where and think that because Bowden or Haley has shown Custodes thus, they are all the same.

 

 

  On 5/24/2017 at 12:54 PM, b1soul said:

As I recall, the Custodes (at least some) are often downright dismissive or even disdainful of the primarchs. Master of Mankind highlights this.

 

To me, I wouldn't say the SW are less respectful. The Custodes are probably worse.

As I said above.

 

  On 5/24/2017 at 3:21 PM, Izlude said:

Yeah reading again now. The custodes definitely view the Primarchs and SMs as a miserable failure. The interaction of Ra (main Custodes) with Dorn highlight that. To me it seems like the book makes a point that the SMs serve the Imperium (Great Crusade) while the Custodes serve the Emperor first and foremost. Aside from tying with Manus as biggest tight ass not super likable but at least kick some ass

Also a above plus Ra interaction with Dorn on the contrary shows different view. It's a dialog of a bodyguards detachment commander with  a general of soldiers. Yes - there is a big difference in that.

Custodes in general viewed as ego-centric, horrible with people and angry 'dicks', but in truth - they are tired bodyguards who simply does not understand human anymore due to the specific of their work.

Hope I made this clear. I will try to be a more directful person from now on and explain my thougths, cause I get the feeling half of BaC misunderstood me in everything.

  • 1 month later...

Consumed the audiobooks for Executioner and Ironclad recently, this seemed as good a place as any to review them. Will catch up on the shorts once the MMPB drops.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

TL:DR - They were both good, for very different reasons

Edited by Roomsky
  • 3 weeks later...
He also talks about it a bit with me on The Imperial Truth Podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-imperial-truth-the-horus-heresy-30k-podcast/id888108404?mt=2&i=1000370770533 Edited by ChildofFang
  On 8/3/2017 at 11:57 AM, ChildofFang said:

 

Thanks, hadn't stumbled across the Imperial Truth pod before.  Started listening to this today.  Enjoyed the Primarch discussion on episode 70.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.