Sigismund's Curse Upon Abaddon

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

1st option according to MoM but it could be legend or myth .

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

I've now spent a decent amount of time removing off topic replies and editing out off topic commentary to keep some of the original post, more than I'm happy with.

 

 

Let's stay on topic of the novel, and if that proves impossible, start a new topic to discuss the point of view you believe needs discussing. 

 

Jarl Kjaran Coldheart

[mc warhammer]

 

 

And really, why would I? In the end, fiction is a matter of investment. Nihilism kills investment. It's a great theme for a book. For a short series, even.

 

For an universe spanning hundreds of books? It's so bad it is hilarious.

 

 

i take your point on the theme perhaps not stretching across a setting as opposed to a shorter form story. 

 

but if nihilism excludes investment...what is it that keeps all the current readers around? what are they investing in?

Was Drach'nyen formed by the first hominid murder on Earth? Or the first murder in the universe (which should have occurred among an alien species...like the proto-Old Ones)

 

i got a human-centric vibe from it

[b1soul]

I think characters whose individual stories aren't necessarily nihilistic

 

...and the setting itself just cool

[Roomsky]

I'm not really of the opinion that character's "deserve" anything. They are occupants of a universe in which climactic duels are less common than one might imagine when viewing the aesthetic. Dorn and Pert never come face to face in a duel to the death, most of the traitor primarchs live on to faff about in the eye. No final vengeance of Lorgar on Guilliman or vice versa, Russ and Magnus never kill each other, Morty and the Khan don't settle their rivalry once and for all. It is not a setting predisposed to bending backwards to fulfill a standard narrative arc. It does not exist to give everyone a fair showing, else all the legions would be equal. Standard narrative practice doesn't apply here, it is a setting, not a story (at least, it was).

 

Siggy got an excellent death, IMO. He very nearly ended Abaddon's 10,000 year campaign right then and there, and despite the meme about chaos being immutable and having infinite pawns, I sure don't see Davarek breaking Cadia. He certainly did better than I would imagine someone 5 times the age of their opponent doing. I certainly haven't seen any evidence in Sigismund's actions that he would have chosen any other way of taking on the upstart Warmaster either, zealous close-quarters is in his character. And no, I don't prefer Abaddon, I've liked Sigismund more ever since I first read about them. 

 

Sigismund wrecked face throughout the Heresy, Throughout the Siege, and spent a millennia beyond taking :cuss from no one. Characters get old, they flicker, 40k is not a romanticized setting. 

[mc warhammer]

I think characters whose individual stories aren't necessarily nihilistic

 

...and the setting itself just cool

 

yeah, but there are those that would argue that setting is nihilism of the worst sort.

 

so if we assume that nihilism excludes people's enjoyment of the setting...what is happening here? is it just a matter of sunk cost for all readers? are they idiots? are they just unaware of the themes? how is black library pulling this off?

 

what is working?

 

on topic, if the showdown was an example of nihilism, for me, it was a stirring one. spitting in the face of the inevitable is cool in my books.

 

but maybe i missed the point?

[mc warhammer]

I'm not really of the opinion that character's "deserve" anything. 

 

thats my feeling too

[Scribe]

Sigismund wrecked face throughout the Heresy, Throughout the Siege, and spent a millennia beyond taking from no one. Characters get old, they flicker, 40k is not a romanticized setting.

Agreed on all, but this part is key..."you will not be missed..."

[b1soul]

I think a distinction may be drawn between...

 

A. In-universe stories/plots whose characters have nihilistic attitudes, whose events give the reader a sense of hopelessness

 

B. Out-of-universe GW/BL declarations of grimdark

It is the 41st millennium. For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the master of mankind by the will of the gods, and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day, so that he may never truly die.

Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor’s will. Vast armies give battle in his name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst His soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Astra Militarum and countless planetary defence forces, the ever-vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from aliens, heretics, mutants – and worse.

To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.

 

I think both A and B are fine

 

Personally, I don't like the absolute interpretation that "[t]here is...only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods" means mankind literally has zero hope of triumphing against its enemies (including Chaos).

 

I prefer to think this language simply sets the tone of the setting and means that chances of Imperial triumph are very slim...but not literally impossible due to word of god.

 

Also...the universe has a limited life-span, and thus all species are doomed to end unless they're able to transcend time and space (like the beings in Interstellar).

 

I therefore don't think that the prospect of mankind's eventual extinction in the far future is relevant to nihilism in 40K. I think nihilism in 40K is defined by how mankind fares against its current foes within a shorter time-frame...and the Imperium's own mindset and attitude toward its citizenry.

 

Kind of rambling...but I'm OK with nihilism as an organic element of the spirit of 40K, I don't like nihilism as a GW-imposed "law of the universe" that always determines meta-plot developments.

[Scribe]

I dont think a distinction is particularly relevant.

 

Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.

 

Honestly what more do you need? That's the setting in 55 words. We are free to look for meaning, for interpretation, for nuance, all we like, but boil that all away, strip it down, crack open that rule book.

 

What do you see?

 

He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium, for whom a thousand souls die every day, for whom blood is drunk and flesh eaten. Human blood and human flesh - the stuff of which the Imperium is made.

 

What is the soul of 40K? What is the root of the setting? Don't wax lyrical on me it can be stated with a single word.

[bluntblade]

Was Drach'nyen formed by the first hominid murder on Earth? Or the first murder in the universe (which should have occurred among an alien species...like the proto-Old Ones)

Human for sure. The line is "two men cry out."

[Kelborn]

That's still rather vague.

 

Two Klingons would refer to themselves as man, as well.

 

*edit*

 

Though I have to admit that I had humans in my mind, as well, the very very first murder would be way more ancient than the human race.

 

OR

 

Is it so powerful because two humans did it? I mean the following:

 

A human murders another one => Drach'nyen, especially able to kill, corrupt, whatever with mankind

 

An Eldar murders another one => a different demonical blade, which has a certain effect on Eldar

 

??

[Lord_Caerolion]

GW really can't win, can they? They've done the whole "Guilliman returning, Indomitus Crusade/Primaris" thing, and people scream that 40k isn't GrimDark enough anymore. Chaos has a victory against a named character, that even incredibly ancient still manages to prove a match for Abaddon as a duellist, and people cry that it's too GrimDark.

[b1soul]

@ Scribe

 

I prefer the "soul" of a setting to be explored through in-universe means, i.e. via characters and events (which would be A)...as opposed to having Nottingham declare "this is what the setting has to be" (which would be closer to B ).

 

I prefer showing to telling...I think that's a relevant distinction.

 

Even so, I don't think the beloved "laughter of thirsting gods" preface is as absolute as some make it out to be. It certainly sets the tone of the setting, as I've said. I don't think it fixes the outcome of the setting (though it does indicate that humanity's odds a quite long to put it mildly).

 

...so to me, it does not require a setting of absolute hopelessness. It simply requires a setting where hope is generally scarce.

 

"What is the soul of 40K? What is the root of the setting? Don't wax lyrical on me it can be stated with a single word."

 

Perhaps to you it can

 

"What do you see?"

 

People may see similar but still different things

[mc warhammer]

while i clearly tap into the generally accepted version of what 40k is all about, i can see how there can be a few different interpretations and would hesitate to call mine right, whether or not i'm in the majority.

[bluntblade]

That's still rather vague.

 

Two Klingons would refer to themselves as man, as well.

 

*edit*

 

Though I have to admit that I had humans in my mind, as well, the very very first murder would be way more ancient than the human race.

 

OR

 

Is it so powerful because two humans did it? I mean the following:

 

A human murders another one => Drach'nyen, especially able to kill, corrupt, whatever with mankind

 

An Eldar murders another one => a different demonical blade, which has a certain effect on Eldar

 

??

Presumably murder doesn't have quite as much significance to the Eldar, what with their very different origins, and therefore they don't seem to have a counterpart.

[MrDarth151]

 

i take your point on the theme perhaps not stretching across a setting as opposed to a shorter form story. 

 

but if nihilism excludes investment...what is it that keeps all the current readers around? what are they investing in?

 

Because it is not readily obvious.

 

Actually, let me rephrase that: It is not obvious at all. I have read most of the sourcebooks, and over a hundred Black Library books. I have several hundreds of hours of education in area of analysing literary works in regards to philosophical themes.

 

I have argued for years that 40k is actually a setting that's anti-nihilistic in regards to its themes. In every 40k community I have partaken in, except for this board, that view was either readily accepted, or outright dominant.

 

Heck, I have successfully convinced people who were of opinion that the setting IS nihilistic that it actually isn't, using books as evidence!

 

That's why arguing that it is essential and fundamental part of the setting grates on me so much: Because to me, it isn't. It never was. If the books I've read were supposed to convey that to me, I would argue that they have failed in that regard.

 

It would mean that I am wrong to like the setting. It would mean that I have intentionally mislead people into liking the setting. It would mean that 40k is a setting that is fundamentally badly written in my book, since it failed to convey an essential and major fundamental theme in massive amounts of works.

 

It should not come of as a surprise that I am unwilling to take that interpretation.

[Scribe]

 

 

I have argued for years that 40k is actually a setting that's anti-nihilistic in regards to its themes. In every 40k community I have partaken in, except for this board, that view was either readily accepted, or outright dominant.

 

 

 

Just for clarity, are you referring to this trope?

 

The Anti-Nihilist is someone who knows how cynical the world is, and decides to stick to a particular value and make meaning out of it, because they know how utterly meaningless, pointless and nonrewarding life is if you don't.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I like that Scribe. :)

[Sete]

Sigismund wrecked face throughout the Heresy, Throughout the Siege, and spent a millennia beyond taking from no one. Characters get old, they flicker, 40k is not a romanticized setting.

Agreed on all, but this part is key..."you will not be missed..."

Except primarchs apparently.

[Scribe]

I'd argue 20 crafted unique beings are more important to the setting than a glorified chapter Master.

[Sete]

Now I know you are wrong. Glorified chapter master?

So you are telling me that a glorified chaos slave is more important?

[Scribe]

Now I know you are wrong. Glorified chapter master?

So you are telling me that a glorified chaos slave is more important?

Which one?

 

EDIT: You know what, its irrelevant.

 

Other than the fact we are told, Word of God style, that 'only Abaddon can unite the forces of Chaos...for a time' off any of them, and they can be replaced.

 

There are very very few entities that actually would be missed in 40K lore.

 

Gods (4 Chaos, 2 Ork, etc)

Emperor

 

Thats really about it. Everyone else HAS died, and yet the setting persists.

 

So yeah, he's a glorified Chapter Master, his Chapter went on after he passed. Same as Khârn, same as Ahriman, same as whoever is leading of the Custodes right now.

 

You will not be missed...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If Abby was really the bestest Eva Space Marine why does he always need a distinct advantage to win ?

[Scribe]

If Abby was really the bestest Eva Space Marine why does he always need a distinct advantage to win ?

 

This kind of reasoning isnt going to get you anywhere.

 

You are essentially asking why plot armour exists.