Why do Abnett 40K stories sometimes not "feel" 40K?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

Could anyone help me articulate why this is?

 

I sometimes feel that Abnett is writing good military sci-fi albeit set in his own pocket Abnett-verse

Well - how to help if you are totally right. Whole GG serie was given for his own universe in the Sabbat Worlds. What could be said more.

 

Abnett prose is unique. Cause - he didn't serve but always does investigation on the theme he is writing with a lot of chating with the infantry/armor vets.

Also - due to him being a prolific comics author and a big fan of english literature/language - he always use the frazes, sentences and build his paragraph in such a way that every other BL author could only dream of. He is from that uniqie range of 'authors' who can build galaxies and worlds from the scratch. And make them interesting.

 

Right now only 1 BL author learned himself almost to the same level as Abnett - and his name is Chris Wraight. His last novels 'Path of Heaven' and 'Carrion Throne' are the best example for that. And upcoming on this saturday 'Watchers of the Throne'.

 

Also a lot of mentioned above leads to Abnett using a lot of good ideas from other titles (he is also a great compiler). He take material and rework and improve on it. For example - his GG are Sharpe in W40K. His Double Eagle is a battle of Britain. His Inqusitor - is a story of Holmes merged with Agatha Cristi. Especially the last Eisenhorn book from the trilogy - it has a direct scene from the "Murder on the Orient Express"

His Horus Heresy characters quote Cesar, Roman Enperors, Shakespear, Dickens, antique greek philosophers etc.

Unremembered empire used 2 Shakesperian dramas in the story. It's partly Hamlet for God Sake.

His 'Prospero burns' show direct glimpses to the war in Bosnia and middle east.

 

All that combined make his style unique and interesting. And through all my scepticism and disappointment with Abnett due to the titles like UE or Prospero Burns - I can't wait to start reading 'The Warmaster'

 

I've never liked the Abnett-verse idea. He no more has his own little setting than Mcneill, ADB, or anyone else. Yes, he expands things, but that's why he's one of two guys I would recommend to someone looking to get into BL. He fleshes out the setting, he doesn't simply fall back on it. His stories feel alive and real because he doesn't constrain himself to pre-established set dressing, he makes his own. 

 

Hell, he tried to make 30k well and truly distinct from 40k, as you might expect with a 10,000 year gap. Its the failing of other authors to live up to his quality, he shouldn't be blamed for being good.

 

So - you don't like the Sabbat Worlds Crusade with all the epicness of Blood Pact, Sons of Sek, Anarch and Gaunt Ghosts?

 

 

Saying Prospero Burns shows glimpses of Bosnia and the Middle East is a huge stretch.

 

But it does - all that scene with the claymores and piano - was actually that. It is always nice to see the meaning beside the scenes. Anyway - in my humble opinion.

 

 

With respect to HeritorA, I think the comparison between Gaunt's Ghosts and Cornwell's Sharpe series is lazy, at best. The two series compare in the sense that both follow the ongoing exploits of a comparatively small unit of infantry in a far larger conflict waged by distant masters. That's where it ends. Sharpe and Gaunt are hardly alike, either in their background, their manner, or their outlook. I struggle to imagine a way in which the wars they wage are meaningfully similar.

Comparison was made by Abnett himself a long time ago. And it stuck.

 

As for the each particular GG book - he used some famous conflict in our history as a backdrop.

For Example - Necropolis  - is a one big Stalingrad. Traitor General - French resistance during WW2. His Last Command  - 1940 attack in Belgium and Germany. Only in Death - direct rewrite to the sieges of Badahos and Suidad Rodrigo during Peninsular war of 1808-1814 etc. etc.

 

Petitioner's City

Vervunhive wad reworked through combining Stalingrad with Nottingham. I'm not joking.

 

 

Again, ridiculous. You're over generalizing. If Abnett says 'oh yes, Traitor General is like the French Resistance' its like saying 'oh yes, wine is like beer'. Both alcohol, nothing alike beyond that. 

[Phoebus]

I would love to see Abnett's actual quote on the matter; to see if made anything more than an indirect reference to another ongoing military fiction series, albeit one that he enjoyed and drew general inspiration from.

[Ranwulf]

Abnett always reminds me how big the 40K universe is. An Inquisitor in a specific sector is NOT going to use the same weapons, follow the same patterns of thought or live the same as another Inquisitor in other sector.

 

One of the weakness that can come up from 40K and 30K books is that the universe feels small, cultures are always monolithic and unchanging.

 

"But thats the Imperium in a nutshell!" I hear someone say.

 

Not exactly though, even in the lore, the Ecclesiarch is okay with different sets of Emperor Worship, him being a Sun God, or an Ancient Warlord (like the Wolves). Abnett makes sure to show us that a galaxy spanning empire will not always be compromised of Cadians, Catachans, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, and slight color changes of there of.

 

Ran

[Xisor]

Generally, I think Abnett totally gets it. I'd echo the sentiment about hovercars in Eisenhorn, and more that Brothers of the Snake is one of the few books I ever stopped reading out of sheer despair - but even at that, it's not as if it didn't have redeeming qualities.

 

For example, the presentation of "pug vs Dark Eldar" didn't work at all well for me. Yet "Space Marines strolling on a sunny beach" totally did.

 

I've a lot of time for his work - but I think the willingness to take risks certainly opens up the chance for egregious missteps. Especially when multiplied by being... industriously prolific.

[Adeptus]

I don't like the label of "Abnett-verse." It implies he can't effectively work within the confines of the setting

I don't think it does. I think it states that he chooses to blur them slightly to suit his own particular vision of the setting.

 

What I've personally noticed is that Abnett's characters overwhelmingly have 21st century morals and motivations. I never noticed characters display much of the entrenched callousness, bigotry and xenophobia that must be part of their lives, they just seemed like 'normal' sci-fi characters to me, perhaps more at home in Star Wars than in 40K. Now, I can't really get too far into the nitty gritty of it since it's been a long time since I read Eisenhorn, I never read the GG series, and I don't intend to go back and do a deep read of them now just to debate them on the internet. But that was the impression I got from what I read, when I read them.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Adeptus

[rendingon1+]

I think Abnett is a king when it comes to writing his own series. For the most part I think they are one of greatest things BL have gave us.

Sequels to the "mixed authors" series - man, I wish he didn't. I mean all of his HH stuff except horus rising.

Also Abnett apparently hates astartes, can't write them convincingly, always stuffs some perpetual or other "super" human into every book and sometimes his super witty dialogues are tiring and inapropriate to the situation.

 

Also I don't get this talk about "taking risks". Every other takes them.

[HeritorA]

 

 

 

 

Could anyone help me articulate why this is?

 

I sometimes feel that Abnett is writing good military sci-fi albeit set in his own pocket Abnett-verse

Well - how to help if you are totally right. Whole GG serie was given for his own universe in the Sabbat Worlds. What could be said more.

 

Abnett prose is unique. Cause - he didn't serve but always does investigation on the theme he is writing with a lot of chating with the infantry/armor vets.

Also - due to him being a prolific comics author and a big fan of english literature/language - he always use the frazes, sentences and build his paragraph in such a way that every other BL author could only dream of. He is from that uniqie range of 'authors' who can build galaxies and worlds from the scratch. And make them interesting.

 

Right now only 1 BL author learned himself almost to the same level as Abnett - and his name is Chris Wraight. His last novels 'Path of Heaven' and 'Carrion Throne' are the best example for that. And upcoming on this saturday 'Watchers of the Throne'.

 

Also a lot of mentioned above leads to Abnett using a lot of good ideas from other titles (he is also a great compiler). He take material and rework and improve on it. For example - his GG are Sharpe in W40K. His Double Eagle is a battle of Britain. His Inqusitor - is a story of Holmes merged with Agatha Cristi. Especially the last Eisenhorn book from the trilogy - it has a direct scene from the "Murder on the Orient Express"

His Horus Heresy characters quote Cesar, Roman Enperors, Shakespear, Dickens, antique greek philosophers etc.

Unremembered empire used 2 Shakesperian dramas in the story. It's partly Hamlet for God Sake.

His 'Prospero burns' show direct glimpses to the war in Bosnia and middle east.

 

All that combined make his style unique and interesting. And through all my scepticism and disappointment with Abnett due to the titles like UE or Prospero Burns - I can't wait to start reading 'The Warmaster'

 

I've never liked the Abnett-verse idea. He no more has his own little setting than Mcneill, ADB, or anyone else. Yes, he expands things, but that's why he's one of two guys I would recommend to someone looking to get into BL. He fleshes out the setting, he doesn't simply fall back on it. His stories feel alive and real because he doesn't constrain himself to pre-established set dressing, he makes his own. 

 

Hell, he tried to make 30k well and truly distinct from 40k, as you might expect with a 10,000 year gap. Its the failing of other authors to live up to his quality, he shouldn't be blamed for being good.

 

So - you don't like the Sabbat Worlds Crusade with all the epicness of Blood Pact, Sons of Sek, Anarch and Gaunt Ghosts?

 

 

Saying Prospero Burns shows glimpses of Bosnia and the Middle East is a huge stretch.

 

But it does - all that scene with the claymores and piano - was actually that. It is always nice to see the meaning beside the scenes. Anyway - in my humble opinion.

 

 

With respect to HeritorA, I think the comparison between Gaunt's Ghosts and Cornwell's Sharpe series is lazy, at best. The two series compare in the sense that both follow the ongoing exploits of a comparatively small unit of infantry in a far larger conflict waged by distant masters. That's where it ends. Sharpe and Gaunt are hardly alike, either in their background, their manner, or their outlook. I struggle to imagine a way in which the wars they wage are meaningfully similar.

Comparison was made by Abnett himself a long time ago. And it stuck.

 

As for the each particular GG book - he used some famous conflict in our history as a backdrop.

For Example - Necropolis  - is a one big Stalingrad. Traitor General - French resistance during WW2. His Last Command  - 1940 attack in Belgium and Germany. Only in Death - direct rewrite to the sieges of Badahos and Suidad Rodrigo during Peninsular war of 1808-1814 etc. etc.

 

Petitioner's City

Vervunhive wad reworked through combining Stalingrad with Nottingham. I'm not joking.

 

 

Again, ridiculous. You're over generalizing. If Abnett says 'oh yes, Traitor General is like the French Resistance' its like saying 'oh yes, wine is like beer'. Both alcohol, nothing alike beyond that. 

 

Again - quote taken from the author own thoughts. You want it to be something else - ask Abnett to write a book based on what you like - I think he will do it

 

 

I would love to see Abnett's actual quote on the matter; to see if made anything more than an indirect reference to another ongoing military fiction series, albeit one that he enjoyed and drew general inspiration from.

well - we could ask Kenny (veterannonoob). He did the last interview for the podcast this year and talked for a long time on all things GG. Abnett should have mentioned it somewhere during the conversation.

 

 

I think Abnett is a king when it comes to writing his own series. For the most part I think they are one of greatest things BL have gave us.

Sequels to the "mixed authors" series - man, I wish he didn't. I mean all of his HH stuff except horus rising.

Also Abnett apparently hates astartes, can't write them convincingly, always stuffs some perpetual or other "super" human into every book and sometimes his super witty dialogues are tiring and inapropriate to the situation.

 

Also I don't get this talk about "taking risks". Every other takes them.

 

He can write Astartes - if there are only several of them (e.g. Salvation Reach). Any other attempts - and it is Hamlet comedy aka 'Unremembered Empire' or childish bolter porn with greek routes aka 'Brothers of the Snakes'

Primarchs are not = human, Space Marine are not = human.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could anyone help me articulate why this is?

 

I sometimes feel that Abnett is writing good military sci-fi albeit set in his own pocket Abnett-verse

Well - how to help if you are totally right. Whole GG serie was given for his own universe in the Sabbat Worlds. What could be said more.

 

Abnett prose is unique. Cause - he didn't serve but always does investigation on the theme he is writing with a lot of chating with the infantry/armor vets.

Also - due to him being a prolific comics author and a big fan of english literature/language - he always use the frazes, sentences and build his paragraph in such a way that every other BL author could only dream of. He is from that uniqie range of 'authors' who can build galaxies and worlds from the scratch. And make them interesting.

 

Right now only 1 BL author learned himself almost to the same level as Abnett - and his name is Chris Wraight. His last novels 'Path of Heaven' and 'Carrion Throne' are the best example for that. And upcoming on this saturday 'Watchers of the Throne'.

 

Also a lot of mentioned above leads to Abnett using a lot of good ideas from other titles (he is also a great compiler). He take material and rework and improve on it. For example - his GG are Sharpe in W40K. His Double Eagle is a battle of Britain. His Inqusitor - is a story of Holmes merged with Agatha Cristi. Especially the last Eisenhorn book from the trilogy - it has a direct scene from the "Murder on the Orient Express"

His Horus Heresy characters quote Cesar, Roman Enperors, Shakespear, Dickens, antique greek philosophers etc.

Unremembered empire used 2 Shakesperian dramas in the story. It's partly Hamlet for God Sake.

His 'Prospero burns' show direct glimpses to the war in Bosnia and middle east.

 

All that combined make his style unique and interesting. And through all my scepticism and disappointment with Abnett due to the titles like UE or Prospero Burns - I can't wait to start reading 'The Warmaster'

I've never liked the Abnett-verse idea. He no more has his own little setting than Mcneill, ADB, or anyone else. Yes, he expands things, but that's why he's one of two guys I would recommend to someone looking to get into BL. He fleshes out the setting, he doesn't simply fall back on it. His stories feel alive and real because he doesn't constrain himself to pre-established set dressing, he makes his own.

 

Hell, he tried to make 30k well and truly distinct from 40k, as you might expect with a 10,000 year gap. Its the failing of other authors to live up to his quality, he shouldn't be blamed for being good.

So - you don't like the Sabbat Worlds Crusade with all the epicness of Blood Pact, Sons of Sek, Anarch and Gaunt Ghosts?

Saying Prospero Burns shows glimpses of Bosnia and the Middle East is a huge stretch.

But it does - all that scene with the claymores and piano - was actually that. It is always nice to see the meaning beside the scenes. Anyway - in my humble opinion.

 

With respect to HeritorA, I think the comparison between Gaunt's Ghosts and Cornwell's Sharpe series is lazy, at best. The two series compare in the sense that both follow the ongoing exploits of a comparatively small unit of infantry in a far larger conflict waged by distant masters. That's where it ends. Sharpe and Gaunt are hardly alike, either in their background, their manner, or their outlook. I struggle to imagine a way in which the wars they wage are meaningfully similar.

Comparison was made by Abnett himself a long time ago. And it stuck.

 

As for the each particular GG book - he used some famous conflict in our history as a backdrop.

For Example - Necropolis - is a one big Stalingrad. Traitor General - French resistance during WW2. His Last Command - 1940 attack in Belgium and Germany. Only in Death - direct rewrite to the sieges of Badahos and Suidad Rodrigo during Peninsular war of 1808-1814 etc. etc.

Petitioner's City

Vervunhive wad reworked through combining Stalingrad with Nottingham. I'm not joking.

Again, ridiculous. You're over generalizing. If Abnett says 'oh yes, Traitor General is like the French Resistance' its like saying 'oh yes, wine is like beer'. Both alcohol, nothing alike beyond that.

Again - quote taken from the author own thoughts. You want it to be something else - ask Abnett to write a book based on what you like - I think he will do it

 

I would love to see Abnett's actual quote on the matter; to see if made anything more than an indirect reference to another ongoing military fiction series, albeit one that he enjoyed and drew general inspiration from.

well - we could ask Kenny (veterannonoob). He did the last interview for the podcast this year and talked for a long time on all things GG. Abnett should have mentioned it somewhere during the conversation.

 

I think Abnett is a king when it comes to writing his own series. For the most part I think they are one of greatest things BL have gave us.

Sequels to the "mixed authors" series - man, I wish he didn't. I mean all of his HH stuff except horus rising.

Also Abnett apparently hates astartes, can't write them convincingly, always stuffs some perpetual or other "super" human into every book and sometimes his super witty dialogues are tiring and inapropriate to the situation.

 

Also I don't get this talk about "taking risks". Every other takes them.

He can write Astartes - if there are only several of them (e.g. Salvation Reach). Any other attempts - and it is Hamlet comedy aka 'Unremembered Empire' or childish bolter porn with greek routes aka 'Brothers of the Snakes'

Primarchs are not = human, Space Marine are not = human.

He's making a comparison, you're making a generalization. All urban combat fiction is based on Stalingrad. All plucky adventures behind enemy lines are based on the french resistance. Rogue One was based on the French Resistance. The Deadly Dozen. The A Team. Predator. It's goes on and on. Lord of the stings has more in common with Medieval Europe than modern times, but people would laugh at you if you tried to generalize them as being equivalent.

[HeritorA]

Marshal Rohr

 - I did not make a generalization. Abnett told in direct words - 'I write Necropolis based on Stalingrad story; Traitor General has it;s roots in French Resistance during WW2.'

An example of 'comparison' is 'His last Command' which I compared to Belgium/French 1940. Or Only in Death which I compared to Badahos (cause if you read the history - is the exact copy of the Blood Pact attack in that book).

 

Why I should verify each point?

[Marshal Rohr]

Because you're asserting things like an authority. You are not. You also are an incoherent poster, so it's impossible to tell when you're making a comparison, a generalization, or an assertion. You clearly can't tell the difference between Abnett making a comparison or using Stalingrad as an inspiration, in the same way firefly used Star Wars AND westerns as an inspiration. It doesn't mean firefly IS Star Wars like you're insisting Necropolis IS Stalingrad.

[HeritorA]

Because you're asserting things like an authority. You are not. You also are an incoherent poster, so it's impossible to tell when you're making a comparison, a generalization, or an assertion. You clearly can't tell the difference between Abnett making a comparison or using Stalingrad as an inspiration, in the same way firefly used Star Wars AND westerns as an inspiration. It doesn't mean firefly IS Star Wars like you're insisting Necropolis IS Stalingrad.

Ahh. Figured. Yeah  - in that you are right. 'Inspiration' is the correct word. He indeed was 'inspired' by them. Thank you for clarification.