Siege of Terra - Saturnine by Dan Abnett

[Roomsky]

These issues of continuity are nothing new, and in my opinion it is by Abnett's reputation and habits that they are merely being drawn attention to here more than elsewhere. Perturabo alone has been 4 different characters in the 4 different Siege books. Whether you like or dislike French, he has written an arc for Perturabo that begins in The Crimson FIst and ends in The Solar War, and that meshes with Hammer of Olympia and Angel Exterminatus. Yet Haley and Thorpe have both ignored this in their books, reducing him back to the same petulant man-child he began the series as. Abaddon in Lost and the Damned bears no resemblance to the Abaddon in the other Siege books. The Horus Heresy at large failed at proper continuity and authors playing nice at the second book when Mcneill changed the characterization that Abnett established for nearly the entire cast.

 

Perhaps two wrongs do not make a right. But you may also argue that when continuity has already failed, quality is all that remains. Abnett wrote a cracking book here that is no more guilty of continuity snarls than the rest of the series, much less the Siege.

 

So yeah, I'll back 12/10.

[SkimaskMohawk]

For someone who's as good at writing as abnett is, I expect not to have jarring characterization. Quality is supported by continuity; lost and the damned, first wall, false gods and and the rest don't get the pass on how characters act. I loved Valdor, and especially the primarch in it, but it failed when it came to continuity so it can't be above perfect.

 

If its noticeably and distractingly imperfect, it can't be better than perfect.

 

Also the good reads score is just data. You can present it in any number of ways. For example, according to good reads, the lost and the damned is a better book than horus rising, scars, path of heaven and the first heretic. Guess they agreed on the whole "continuity and characterization doesn't matter" angle.

[b1soul]

"the lost and the damned is a better book than horus rising, scars, path of heaven and the first heretic"

 

Yeah...it's also different people rating each book with different scales in their heads.I think that data is near useless

[Guiltysparc]

I loved this book, if you haven't heard the audibook, the reading of Diaz's fight scene is absolutely amazing.  I listened to it 4 times.  Its my favorite of the Siege series, possibly my favorite of all the heresy series.

[m0nolith]

I loved this book, if you haven't heard the audibook, the reading of Diaz's fight scene is absolutely amazing. I listened to it 4 times. Its my favorite of the Siege series, possibly my favorite of all the heresy series.

Generally speaking I tend to zone out during most fighting scenes, but the ones in this book were exceptional!

That Diaz one was excellent, but I have to say my favourite one was probably the Abaddon one.

The last time I read a fight that good was in ADB’s Black Legion between Sigismund and...yeah...Abaddon again :p

Edited August 1, 2020 by m0nolith

[mc warhammer]

re good reads...depends on what kinda data you're after.

 

that 149 readers rated the book almost 5/5? yeah.

how each of those readers scaled that score? maybe. if you're very patient and like spreadsheets.

that the book is objectively "good"? no data will ever tell you that.

 

comparing data sets from the reviews between different books might be tricky because you will want to account for the time period a book is published, the number of votes (11513 for horus rising vs the 149 for saturnine) and all sorts of other factors.

 

talking about different scales in different reader's heads; continuity is less important to some. i personally prefer it, but since i let go of any need for it (especially regarding 40k) i enjoy the fiction a lot more. as a hypothetical: i'd take a series of 5 brilliant books with jarring continuity over  5 average books with watertight continuity.

Edited August 1, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Fire Golem]

I’m with Roomsky here. The characterisation might not have meshed perfectly with the couple of books before, but I didn’t like a lot of the characterisation of the books before so, I’m glad. I gave up on consistency a long time ago in this series, so I don’t really find it a distraction, I just take it as it comes and decide if I enjoyed reading that version of the character. 
 

This book was exactly what I needed in the series after 2 and 3. 

[bluntblade]

I feel I'm at an advantage due to my very selective reading. Abnett's takes on the characters mostly mesh with what I've seen elsewhere, with the small exception of the Khan and the sometimes distracting coarseness from certain characters.

[b1soul]

Horus Heresy top 10 for me, based on personal enjoyment

 

1. Horus Rising

2. Path of Heaven

3. Prospero Burns (once I got over the misleading marketing)

4. Scars (read as a single novel right after Brotherhood of the Storm)

5. A Thousand Sons

6. Legion

7. Betrayer

8. Know No Fear

9. Saturnine

10. Master of Mankind

 

Honourable mentions: First Heretic (just not a big fan of the legion, well-written though), Unremembered Empire (too many primarch fights but some really cool moments like the Lion stalking Curze in the dark and the Wolves facing a maniacal Curze), French's work is consistently readable

[SkimaskMohawk]

@b1soul and mcwarhammer it's almost like that's exactly my point lol.

[Fedor]

I've always thought there's a lot of exaggeration in many of the claims of character difference between authors. Especially the ones that were supporting characters in the first place in all their appearances. I can't really think of many that bothered me too much other than Perturabo between CF and AE, usually they aren't jarring enough not to be taken as just different aspects of personality being explored.

 

For instance Perturabo having petty( some of which might not be the best crafted) lines in previous siege books does not mean his arc has been reset or ignored. Especially when it comes to engagements with the Fists, where his bitterness eventually leads to the Iron Cage.

 

Keeler and Syndermann still have a few books to go and aren't working from  a pre-existing template in the way the primarchs/many astartes are, so for those two i wait and see where they will end up before a proper judgement unless i read something totally out of left field. Saturnine was ok in that regard for me.

 

The most jarring thing in Saturnine for me was that :cusse Loken quip at the end. It was like something straight out of the '80s Arnie playbook had suddenly appeared that was meant for another book and confrontation entirely.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Fedor

[mc warhammer]

I feel I'm at an advantage due to my very selective reading. Abnett's takes on the characters mostly mesh with what I've seen elsewhere, with the small exception of the Khan and the sometimes distracting coarseness from certain characters.

that's a good point, i've also chosen not to read all the entries in the heresy and that spotty approach probably makes continuity less of a priority

@b1soul and mcwarhammer it's almost like that's exactly my point lol.

wasn't disputing anyone's input, just throwing my own fuel on the fire

[Marshal Rohr]

Aggressively Standalone is a great way to put it, and also *why* it’s so good. It just nails the Heresy and the Siege, even if it doesn’t nail the characters from the past books.

[SkimaskMohawk]

If you can disconnect from the preceding books it certainly jumps the quality of book. I'd say from my 8-8.5 to a solid 9 of some sort.

 

If there was a map I think it would make the stand-alone saturnine perfect.

[Marshal Rohr]

That’s pretty much my take on it too. I hadn’t been consuming much Black Library prior to getting Saturnine and some of the plot points in the early Siege novels were lost to Quarantine burn out, so in a way Saturnine kinda rebooted the series for me. There’s also something about the way he’s describing the fights that feels more appropriate to the Siege than what I remember from first three. The dark mechanicum trebuchets that use magnetic accelerators to throw chunks of masonry, the pike infantry with esoteric lightning projectors built in, shield carrying trench raiders. It feels like a John Blanche painting while simultaneously meshing with stuff like the assault on Illium and Bodt from the Black Books n

[Sandlemad]

Apart from the issue of different personalities folks have already posted about - Valdor suffered from this particularly, came across as quite flat and jovial compared to his excellent and fey portrayal in Wraight's work - and a few other quibbles, this is the book where the gulf between the widespread fandom reaction and the quality of the book was made apparent to me. I thought it was excellent overall.

 

Yes it's Abnett doing his own thing, yes the perpetual stuff was an annoying development, but very little of what I have seen written in reaction to Saturnine (not so much on B&C) seems to reflect the book I read. Follow those reactions and you'd walk away assuming this was all John Grammaticus all the time, cackling as he ruined The Lore, with very little about the frequent good character work, the actual plot, the switches between different writing styles, the approach to religion, the varied and solid battle scenes, etc.

 

Easily one of the best heresy books overall.

[Sothalor]

One thing that irks me about some of the reactions is the whole "Erda is responsible for the scattering of the Primarchs" claim.

 

That's just it; it's a claim, made in-setting, from one character to another. It's not a definitive, objective statement. And one thing the series has thoroughly demonstrated is that the Perpetuals are not omniscient, infallible beings. They may be long-lived and experienced beyond the comprehension of most, but they're still prone to arrogance, bias, misunderstanding, and getting manipulated.

 

It is no more a cosmic setting retcon than it is Erasmus Crowl stumbling upon a room in the Imperial Palace, seeing statues of the Primarchs, and wondering why there are are more than nine of them. The "only nine Primarchs" bit is a view of that character's understanding and beliefs, not some omniscient statement about the Truth of the Setting or anything.

 

For :cuss's sake, isn't this basic reading and narrative comprehension? Do people not understand how novels or storytelling function anymore?

[Roomsky]

 

For :cuss's sake, isn't this basic reading and narrative comprehension? Do people not understand how novels or storytelling function anymore?

 

*Points gun while in astronaut costume*

 

They never did.

[Scribe]

Its not about it being a cosmic level retcon.

 

Its about Abnett pushing his own creations into the setting, when they didnt need to exist in the first place.

 

For fans of the Abnett-verse, its great. For the rest of us, its just another example of him doing whatever he wants.

[Lucerne]

Its not about it being a cosmic level retcon.

 

Its about Abnett pushing his own creations into the setting, when they didnt need to exist in the first place.

 

For fans of the Abnett-verse, its great. For the rest of us, its just another example of him doing whatever he wants.

I'd take the Abnettverse over the clownshow that is a standard Heresy/Siege plotline. So, yes, while the perpetual subplot is a bit pointless and best considered unreliable narrator/filler, the novel other than a few dodgy oneliners (seriously the SoH trashtalking Fulgrim, what) frankly was a breath of fresh air.

 

In a question of who calls the shots between Abnett and most of the stable of BL writers, Abnett wins that choice every time.

 

But then I'd rather retroactively remove LatD and good chunks of the Siege series from existence so this novel basically doing its own thing isn't an issue for me at all.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Lucerne

[Scribe]

Thats fine. I'd take French/ADB/Wraight all day every day, and think its tragic they are giving the last book to Abnett. :p

[Moonreaper666]

Thats fine. I'd take French/ADB/Wraight all day every day, and think its tragic they are giving the last book to Abnett. :p

Um, I thought ADB and Abnett have similar reputation when it comes to the lore insights in their book?

 

Is ADB writing the second-to-last book? I was thinking that maybe Abnett's final book could mesh with ADB and Wraight's SoT books (Which are going to be the best books so it makes more sense for Abnett to be more cohesive to the good books than the mediocore ones)

[Lord_Caerolion]

ADB doesn't invent stuff out of nowhere, at least not to the degree Abnett does.

[Scribe]

 

Thats fine. I'd take French/ADB/Wraight all day every day, and think its tragic they are giving the last book to Abnett.

Um, I thought ADB and Abnett have similar reputation when it comes to the lore insights in their book?

 

 

No, not remotely close to the same 'insights'. One clings to the lore near obsessively, the other invents Perpetuals.

[Moonreaper666]

 

 

 

Thats fine. I'd take French/ADB/Wraight all day every day, and think its tragic they are giving the last book to Abnett.

Um, I thought ADB and Abnett have similar reputation when it comes to the lore insights in their book?

 

No, not remotely close to the same 'insights'. One clings to the lore near obsessively, the other invents Perpetuals.

Find it interesting the characters that Abnett has stated to be Perpetuals because it makes Chaos that much dangerous. ADB likes exploring Chaos in his own way (Warp Ghost, Night Lords and Black Legion)

 

Malcador, Emperor and Olly all die in the lore while Vulkan has died once having to be revived via a sacrifice and gone MIA. The fact that they are very hard to kill immortals and yet Chaos has found ways to end their lives or another way to take them out of the chessboard shows how dangerous it/they are

 

I get the feeling that all SoT books after Saturnine will be Chaos 'victories' one after another especially ADB's book and the final one

 

I also get the feeling that the Siege of Terra Novels' conclusion somehow is going to be more grimdark than the older lore, a more downer ending than thought possible. Question is can ADB and Abnett pull it off?