HH 45: Tallarn

[Dagoth Ur]

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?

[HeritorA]

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!

[Taliesin]

Try R. Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse series. It is excellent, has deep worldbuilding and many mysteries that spawn online conversations.

[Mellow]

You can't seriously expect to openly disagree with HeritorA and get away with it, can you?!

 

He's always right. Always honest and most of all, if you think he's wrong then it's actually YOU that's wrong.

 

Honest.

[Dagoth Ur]

 

 

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.

[Mellow]

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.

[DarkChaplain]

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.

[HeritorA]

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 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.

[LaurieJGoulding]

 

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.

[veterannoob]

See South Park season 19 episode Thanks for Yelping

[HeritorA]

 

 

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)

[b1soul]

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?

[R_F_D]

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.

[b1soul]

The Custodes are not especially respectful toward the primarchs

[R_F_D]

This is true but definitely more so than any SW?

 

Going back to your original point; we've had two stories which suggest that the pack's were an early warning sign?  The Watcher by Dunn and Hunter's Moon by Haley?

[b1soul]

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.

[R_F_D]

Ahhhh haven't read MoM yet, I concede the point.

[Izlude]

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

[bluntblade]

That's by the time of the late Heresy, though. In The First Heretic, the Custodians' views on Lorgar seem to vary. The fact that Aquillon and Vendatha view Argel Tal as a friend still counts for something

[HeritorA]

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Roomsky]

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.

 

These books were interesting in that they illuminate an issue with my rating system: that I rate based on flaws, not on merits. While I think it's safe to say that several small flaws and one big one may both equal a point in the critic's mighty arsenal of superficial points being lost, it doesn;t really speak to the overall quality of what is being read. I could rate a graphic novel and a time-tried literary classic both at 4 stars out of 5, but that doesn't mean much at all because I evaluate them both for what they are, not in some grand objective scale within which all works of literature lie.

 

This brings us back to the meat of the Tallarn collection. I give both these books a very solid 4/5, but to me they are so far divorced in tone and quality that subject matter is about the only thing consistent between them. 

 

Tallarn: Executioner

 

Everything about the first ~4/5ths of this book is actually amazing. Not "amazing for genre fiction" or "amazing for a BL book," but actually fantastic in relation to every book I've read, ever. French puts in the view of several very relatable (very fragile) humans in the midst of one of the heresy's greatest battles, to stunning effect. Much as I love me some cheesy astartes-level brotherly love, the melodrama much of the series carries isn't really present here. Something colossal is happening and nobody knows why, nor is there any certainty that victory is even possible. But still, they fight on and with a degree of humanity uncharacteristic of a French book. My main weakness with him as a writer isn't downplayed here, it instead seems to have just evaporated. People are telling jokes, people are clumsily attempting to make the best of what they have, people are being realistically stupid and panicked instead of the usual mighty logic-engines on legs which populate most of his works.

 

This departure means that, unlike most of his books where the drama comes from a very complex and well executed plot forming from disparate threads, it comes from genuine concern for the protagonists. Nothing seems an inevitability, not since the one young crewman takes his mask off during decontamination and melts rather suddenly. And I can't praise this enough for that, I put this one up there with All Quiet on the Western front for things I want to read when in the mood for the horrors of war. Yes, I mean that.

 

I would be remiss to say that great characters was the only thing the book had going for it, however, as this thing is tense. The opening chapters of slowly crawling through the fog are masterfully done, you really feel the insidiousness of a situation where one wrong move could take out a friendly tank instead of an enemy one. This probably also contains my favorite depiction of a titan, with its black and white certainty that being caught in the wrong place is death, no heroic maveric maneuvers here.

 

Then, unfortunately, we reach the final chapter. This is probably a mostly subjective complaint, but the story really seems to forget what made it so good. The moment Jalen shows up, verisimilitude is on its way out. I believed all these people could exist, but Jalen seems so... overwritten? I'm not speaking of his magic tattoos, but he just starts spewing his bond-villain tirade in a story that honestly seemed above such things. It also really didn't seem adequately built up to either, a rare example of French not establishing his plot points beforehand in a satisfying manner. I suppose it sort of fits the theme that they main cast is embroiled in a situation they can only barely comprehend, but the entire time I was left thinking "Where did this come from?"

 

Major issues with the ending aside, this book blew me away, and I look forward to a re-read once the paperback hits shelves.

 

 

Tallarn: Ironclad

 

This one is also very good, but coming off the heels of Executioner, I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed that it returns to more standard Heresy fare. That said, I really do like this book, and it is only barely edged out by Praetorian of Dorn as my favorite John French Novel.

 

A return to standard form of course also means a return to what usually makes French a joy to read: several interesting but disparate plot points slowly intertwining until we get a full picture. Even in his works I didn't enjoy all that much (I'm looking at you, Ahriman), he never failed to stun with how well-plotted everything was, and Ironclad is no exception. While I enjoyed how monstrous and unknown the Iron Warriors were in Executioner, I'm happy to see them on full display here. While most prefer Mcneill's Perturabo, French perfectly captures what I always imagined when reading about him. His terse, pessimistic personality fits very well with that forgeworld sketch of him.

 

Uhm, not quite

 

I also loved how Perturabo tells Hrend very vaguely that he totally plans to use the Oculus to kill Fulgrim.

 

Having some human protagonists again was a good choice, and the Iron Warriors dreadnaught was as interesting as the subject deserves. The real stars here though were Argonis and Sota-Nu, and the infocyte Iaeo. Argonis' attempts to both assert his authority whilst both keeping his head and not undermining the Iron Warrior's fleet were always amusing to consume (as was the levity he brought to the story, something most French works are in absence of), and Sota-Nu for being creepy as hell. Props to Jonathan Keeble for making me believe I was actually listening to a female Dark-Mechanicus agent have a machine-gasm while corrupting some Iron Warriors tech. Iaeo, on the other hand, was interesting simply for showing the havoc an infocyte can wreak even outside of their standard operating zones, and even against their "hard-counter" in the Alpha Legion.

 

Speaking of the 20th, Jalen is more at home here in a proper espionage plotline, though I have mixed feelings towards them being here. I begin to see why some dislike them for not only having their tendrils in everything, but seemingly an active role in everything as well. It's a good thing Alpharius has an infinite supply of legionaries, or he might be stretched a little thin to make that run for Pluto later on.

 

Much as it has clearly rubbed many readers the wrong way, I also want to praise the use of brief intermissions to tell what is happening in the battle at large. My reasons for liking this are twofold: 

1- Black Library writers are neither strategists nor tacticians, and the more vague they are about military engagements the less likely they will write something stupid

2- I don't care about the battle for its own sake

 

If you read this series for the setpieces and battles, I can understand that. Personally though, I read it for the characters, their interactions, their plights and miseries and hopes and goals. Certainly French could have given us a cast who had a hand in the battle itself, but I have a hard time complaining about it because of both point 1, and because the characters we got were plenty compelling. Executioner gave me all I needed to see of Tallarn's battle proper, the behind-the-scenes stuff appeals more to me anyway. Battle reports in warhammer have a bad habit of being boring as hell.

 

As for issues besides the omnipresent Alpha Legion, the tank crew this time round really did seem flat compared to those in Executioner, more plot points than actual characters. Additionally, while I suppose it creates an amusing parallel to The Crimson Fist, Horus demanding Perturabo withdraw while so close to the Black Oculus seemed a tad convenient.

 

Overall, Ironclad was a very solid entry that frankly gave me more than I had expected for a book on a big tank battle, but unfortunately rides on the heels of Executioner.

 

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

Edited July 15, 2017 by Roomsky

[R_F_D]

John's done an interview about Tallern on the Warhammer Community site 

[ChildofFang]

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 August 3, 2017 by ChildofFang

[Plaguecaster]

Thanks Roomsky :D after seeing your review I think I may be picking it up as it sounds good :D

[R_F_D]

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

 

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