In the grim darkness of the far future... [Controversial]

[grailkeeper]

I'd say one of the main reasons people bring up the female characters in ADB's work a lot is because he has publicly gone on record a few times as saying that he'll always have female characters in his books post-Cadian blood. When all of those books (bar maybe Master of Mankind) are about Space Marines, who tend to live in a hyper masculine environment, it leaves them open to the criticism that any female characters are shoehorned in to meet a diversity quota. I'm not saying that that is correct of course, but drawing attention to it publicly will result in people talking about it, no matter how right or wrong they are.

 

Put it another way- I'm pretty sure every one of ADB's books feature a character who is in some way disabled. Nobody has ever claimed that those characters are in any way shoehorned in, but if he were to state that he always wants to have a disabled character those arguments would probably start to be made . "Of course you had to have a character with bionics/mental illness/ some physical condition". ADB could rightly point out that the 40k universe is one that chews people up and spits them out, and expecting a universe without the disabled is just as nuts as expecting one without women, but people would still bang on about it.

 

TLDR I think that the fact that he drew attention to it is the reason why this argument keeps cropping up again and again for whatever that's worth.

[pandion40]

I never understood why Abnett was as popular as he was, that’s not to say I dislike him he just doesn’t stand out for me. This thread has helped me see why. I can enjoy many different 40k/30k books but I’m into GW mainly because of the Astartes, most of his best books have focused on normal Humans which is inherently less interesting to me.

 

McNeill Is a mixed bag for me, I enjoyed the novel of Fulgrims fall but I preferred the original way Fulgrim fell, I also think there were a lot of missed opportunities with Fulgrims story as a whole.

 

ADB is probably the most consistent author for me, the only complaint I have of him is a lot of his books have been about parts of the universe I’ve little interest in, the Word Bearers are the biggest example of this, the central philosophy of the legion is something I have difficulty understanding and I can’t help but feel a lot of contempt for. Still I enjoyed the books which is a compliment given how I feel about the Word Bearers.

 

I’m also very interested in the interaction between normal humans and Astartes so that helps.

 

My biggest complaint of the Heresy is that the Signus event should have been over multiple books, written by someone else and the squad of wolves should not have been there.

Edited March 14, 2018 by pandion40

[SillyDreadnought]

I'm really surprised that Ben Counter didn't make your pooplist. Did everyone decide to collectively forget Battle for the Abyss or Galaxy in Flames?

[Brother Heinrich]

I'm really surprised that Ben Counter didn't make your pooplist. Did everyone decide to collectively forget Battle for the Abyss or Galaxy in Flames?

shhhhhhhh

[grailkeeper]

I'm really surprised that Ben Counter didn't make your pooplist. Did everyone decide to collectively forget Battle for the Abyss or Galaxy in Flames?

 

The best thing that can be said about them is "At least they're not the Damnation of Pythos".

[Memento Of Prospero]

Or Nemesis. That novel is the template script of bad 80s action movies.

[Fedor]

Not exactly reading much that could be called "controversial" in here. LMAO at calling Kyme a sacred cow.

 

I'm often slightly baffled at the sheer extent a lot of fans go to in their outright dismissing of certain BL authors. It's not as if any write consistently in a particularly distinctive stylistic manner, i mean sure you can find little quirks and tropes different ones like to use, and sometimes you get pieces that are more experimental prose-wise(usually in shorts) but by and large they all stick to a broadly generic modern way of writing sci-fi\fantasy.

 

It's not like we are going from Joyce to Elmore Leonard to Tolkien to Cormac McCarthy to Catherynne Valente or China Mieville in terms of difference in prose stylist when we switch from Wraight-Thorpe-McNeil-Abnett-ADB or whoever. IF BL had a policy of only putting author name on the first 2 or 3 books someone writes for them, i reckon i would have a hard time keeping up with who was writing what very quickly. I don't mean that as much of a criticism btw, and think it's something that could be levelled at 90% of recent sci-fi/fantasy..distinctive, affected prose styles don't seem in style much anymore.

 

More important for me is there is no current BL writer  that stands out as having sub-par, easily mocked prose and ideas like a Goodkind has in the broad world of fantasy imo, someone who it is utterly baffling they have the job/success they do. they are all solid writers i am willing to give a chance on to see the latest take they have, even if i think some play it slightly safer than others. My own observation from reading internet feedback on BL over the years is that it's much more often the in-universe choices made for factions that can quickly decide an authors rep, more than any sound long-term criticism of  consistently bad writing or appreciation of a highly distinctive style on show.

[carlisimo]

I don't know about that. When I read Ruinstorm I thought to myself that I'd be able to pick out Annandale's prose in a figurative blind taste test. Sandy Mitchell's Cain books had distinctively long sentences - nothing that kept me from loving those books, but the writing style stood out. If the book has a lot of extra characters and chapters who purely serve to set the scene, but then it runs out of pages and rushes the end, it's probably an Abnett book (I still loved those novels, but it definitely happened).

 

They're not cookie cutter authors, they have styles of their own.

[bluntblade]

Simply put, Kyme and Thorpe are authors I dismiss when it comes to shelling out £10 for a novel.

[TheRealMcCagh]

What is it about Thorpe's work that people don't like? The only novels of his I've read are ​Deliverance Lost and Angels of Caliban, but I liked both of those. Deliverance Lost I was listening to while painting, so I wasn't really focusing on it, but it was good background.

[MrDarth151]

Meh. Frankly, I don't prejudge. Just about any author has things I like and dislike. Great stories, and poor stories.

 

None are beyond criticism.

 

And there are traps that all fall into. Like writing the setting to fit the story, rather than the other way around, though I blame poor/lack of editorial oversight for that more than anything.

[bluntblade]

What is it about Thorpe's work that people don't like? The only novels of his I've read are ​Deliverance Lost and Angels of Caliban, but I liked both of those. Deliverance Lost I was listening to while painting, so I wasn't really focusing on it, but it was good background.

The prose. Something about it just kills my appetite.

[MrDarth151]

 

What is it about Thorpe's work that people don't like? The only novels of his I've read are ​Deliverance Lost and Angels of Caliban, but I liked both of those. Deliverance Lost I was listening to while painting, so I wasn't really focusing on it, but it was good background.

The prose. Something about it just kills my appetite.

 

 

He generally lacks flair, and often goes into portrayals that I would call... somewhat lacking in nuance.

 

He does better in short stories.

[Roomsky]

I'll, be honest, I have no idea what this thread is supposed to be about or what the discussion has to do with the title.

 

If the question is: "Does it get better?" I would say no. The authors you despise aren't likely to improve and the ones you love aren't likely to self-destruct. If indeed you're growing frustrated with writers paying fast and loose with what you think should be concrete, it's probably best to limit your buying to those you do enjoy, I don;t think anyone's like to change any time soon. Alternatively, Kyme can be exceptionally inept, give him a universal pass unless you enjoy his shorts.

 

If the topic is "What writers annoy you and which do you enjoy?" my list is probably to extensive to be worth the time in articulating it, so here are some standouts:

 

I've come around to Thorpe lately, not all of his stuff is a home run (I actually prefer his novels over his shorts, he doesn't know what to do with the format IMO) but it's generally at least interesting. My reread of Weregeld was also vastly more pleasant than the first time so I suppose I rescind my previous fury.

 

I really wish Josh Reynold's was the baseline for BL quality, because I've yet to dislike even his weakest works. To my mind he understands the mix of pathos, grimness, and humor inherent to 40k like no other, even when his plot and themes run thin.

 

I read The Watcher recently, and if it's any indication of the rest of his repertoire CZ Dunn may be the worst author ever.

 

I will say nothing is at all sacred to me. I certainly have my views about how the universe should be run, some running more strongly than others, but to me the likes of Abnett bending the rules for the sake of a genuinely good story never rankles. It's all in the skill of the author to my mind, hell, I'm not even the biggest Haley fan and I enjoyed Dark Imperium quite a bit despite disliking the very idea of Guilliman's return. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Roomsky

[mc warhammer]

the fact that strong female characters from adb stands out as some sort of author trope shows how sorely it's missing in 40k books

 

i mean, nobody seems to say x author always writes "strong male characters, get a new trick"

[MrDarth151]

 

the fact that strong female characters from adb stands out as some sort of author trope shows how sorely it's missing in 40k books

 

Not really. If anything, it is limiting his range when it comes to them, and creates the feeling that they are actually the same character with few changes. The feeling is largely superficial, but I do think it has root in his writing style.

 

i mean, nobody seems to say x author always writes "strong male characters, get a new trick"

 

Because we criticise male character much more harshly. And for that matter, I find that the ABD's habit of writing protagonist as in some way special rubs me the wrong way, and most of them are male, if we can call Space Marines that.

[Enosh]

 

the fact that strong female characters from adb stands out as some sort of author trope shows how sorely it's missing in 40k books

 

oh please, can't throw a rock in 40k book without hitting a "strong female character", ADB isn't special where he is the only one writing them, especially not in a place as ideologically homogeneous as Black library

[cheywood]

A big conceit of 40k, at least to me, is martially strong but somewhat philosophically brittle characters too convinced of their own righteousness or surrounded by those who are. ADB's characters seem broadly consistent with that framework to me. It's not like any 40k author is neglecting to include interesting male characters to write exclusively about women, so what's the big deal if we consistently have engaging characters of both genders?

[Ascanius]

I can't agree with criticisms of Abnett's take on . . . anything in 30K or 40K.

[TheRealMcCagh]

How is a strong female character a trope? Could there be a wider net to cast? There are two possible sexes to use and 5-10 main characters, to have at least one of them be female is all the sudden a trope? Loken and Keeler fits, Rand and Egwene, Johnny Rico and Dizzy/Carmen, Harry Potter and Hermione, Paul Atreides has Lady Jessica, Alia, and Chani, ASoIaF has at least half a dozen strong female leads. All of these novels are falling into a trope? That's like saying Abnett is using the same framework because there is a guardsmen/human in it.

 

The only reoccuring thing I notice in ADB's novels is they usually feature a Dreadnaught. But Dreadnaughts are rad, so I'm great with it.

Edited March 15, 2018 by TheRealMcCagh

[Withershadow]

 

What is it about Thorpe's work that people don't like? The only novels of his I've read are ​Deliverance Lost and Angels of Caliban, but I liked both of those. Deliverance Lost I was listening to while painting, so I wasn't really focusing on it, but it was good background.

The prose. Something about it just kills my appetite.

It's also all so incredibly maudlin. Dark Angels, Dark Elves, Raven Guard... notice a pattern?

[bluntblade]

I'm sure I'd be turned off just as hard if he wrote Iron Hands or Sons of Horus.

[Hesh Kadesh]

the fact that strong female characters from adb stands out as some sort of author trope shows how sorely it's missing in 40k books

 

i mean, nobody seems to say x author always writes "strong male characters, get a new trick"

What makes a character strong, though? What defines being strong? And what does the gender matter so much? Can females not have male role models? And what role model is there to gain from the 30K or 40K setting?

[Phoebus]

Everybody has their own tastes, and it’s far from my place to say that anyone here is wrong... but man, do I disagree with a lot of the takes I read here.

 

Look, at the end of the day, Dan Abnett is by no means perfect. That said, I think the growth in his work since the start of the Horus Heresy series (never mind since the start of the Gaunt’s Ghosts series) is evident. That includes his depictions of Astartes, which I think have only gotten stronger and more nuanced over time. Fret about “wet leopard growls” all you like: Abnett’s Vlka Fenryka were far more than the Vikings In Space trope they had mostly been before. Even his supporting cast Space Marines — chiefly, Eadwine, Krater, and Sar as heck, from Salvation’s Reach — provide a wonderful contrast against his “normal” human characters, especially where their conflicting mindsets are concerned.

 

Likewise, I really struggle to see the “patterns” people see in Dembski-Bowden’s cast of characters. If you ask me, the only real recurring pattern in his novels involves his protagonists, and is something you should see more of in Heresy and Warhammer 40k: meaningful internal conflict that goes beyond the threat of violence the antagonists provide. Grimaldus, for example, isn’t stressing about Orks or even about Armageddon falling so much as he is about dying there, apart from what he sees as the greater conflict Helbrecht is fighting. Talos isn’t worried about some named enemy or rival; his own powers are killing him and he’s surrounded by “comrades” who don’t share the perspective that informs his own atrocities. Argel Tal struggles with the fact that the powers that rule his universe are wholly evil, but because they represent the truth of it, he is committed to carrying out their will. That’s not to say that every protagonist in a Dembski-Bowden novel shares the same kind of struggle, but then against not every one of his female supporting characters is strong, per se, or even inclined to view the lead in a favorable light.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Phoebus

[MrDarth151]

Likewise, I really struggle to see the “patterns” people see in Dembski-Bowden’s cast of characters.

 

It's not so much a character pattern, as it is structural one. ADBs novels follow largely similar pattern: There is a Space Marine protagonist who is conflicted, yet highly exceptional, there is one/two major supporting characters, humans, who interact with the Marine protagonist to varying degree and so on, and so forth. 

 

It feels similar, even though it really isn't. The characters are different from one another, yet similar enough that you can see certain patterns emerging.

 

To put it simply, the works feel similar because of said structure. 

 

meaningful internal conflict that goes beyond the threat of violence the antagonists provide.

 

On that, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Ultimately, the nature of the universe prevents meaningful internal conflicts.