Indomitus novel

[DarkChaplain]

I'd actually count Haley more on the harder end of the scifi spectrum if left to his devices, though obviously he also leans into the fantasy side depending on subject matter. Then, that "harder" part was actually one of the common criticisms I've seen floating around in the early years of Baneblade or Death of Integrity, so... yeah.

[aa.logan]

Ok, so that took me a long time to finish.

 

I’ll say again, the bright green book is lovely. The contents, less so.

 

Is the fact I struggled to finish it down to the fact that the book isn’t great, or because I’ve been hit by massive waves of 2020 this month? It’s hard to say.

 

Positives- the Destroyer bits. These were without a doubt the best parts of the book. Were the perspectives reversed, and the main focus was on the Necrons, this would have been a far better book; the politicking wasn’t quite fleshed out enough to be plausible, though as presented does render the dynasties as nicely camp.

 

It was also refreshing to see Astartes struggling to relate to mortal humans; though I agree that this could have been presented better. Marines are, as we are reminded periodically, psycho-indoctrinated killers, driven by hated of all that deviates from their norm- the Chaplain charging off into battle, reciting literal litanies of hate and the deck crew being physical intimidated and dismissed for lacking mental fortitude were neat touches, and refreshing to see, though the counter is the fact that this isn’t in fitting with how diplomatic Primaris marines are meant to be capable of being or how the Ultramarines are generally presented.

 

The short story at the end would maybe have worked better as a prologue, but is really good. Good, concise world-building.

 

As has been mentioned elsewhere, this feels very much like ‘old 40k’; BL, and Gav himself, have put out much more sophisticated books lately, and this really doesn’t live up to what I’ve come to expect. Being a tie-in, I didn’t have the highest hopes, I knew it would be a pretty linear plot and wouldn’t rock the boat much, but I did think it would be a more enjoyable read than it did turn out to be.

 

Indomitus is OK, but it just isn’t that much fun, which is all I wanted.

 

Can’t speak highly enough about the lovely bright green book with the stylised Necron on the cover though.

[Tyriks]

Can you give a rundown of the short story from the LE?

[aa.logan]

Civilians, specifically farmers on a very big, very 40k harvesting machine, encounter Necrons. Hi-jinks ensue.

[Petitioner's City]

If you follow him on Twitter Gav has joined the ‘space marines are evil’ caucus and as I’m working through this book you can see him falling into the ‘Incompetant Authoritarian’ tropes with the relationships between the space marines and how they act. It’s more like a 40’s movie portrayal of German commanders or Cold War era Action Movie Soviets than the Bronze Age/Dark Age Demi-Gods we get in ADB novels.

Can you source this - Gav is a prolific tweeter, but what are his tweets for this?

 

---

 

Also in this thread people are commenting on an author exploring politics through their fiction. I dont get people saying sci-fi and politics don't mix - science fiction is often used for political fiction, from Capek's RUR and Lang's Metropolis to the works of Lem and Leguin and Roddenberry and Lucas and Dick and Stanely Robinson and thousands of others, and very much contemporary science fiction - say Corey writing duo, Iain Banks, Neil Gaiman or other scifi writers across media.

 

It's quite maddening to read a denial of the political nature of the genre when it is taught as political, and often received as political. Indeed a very common phrase describing science fiction in literary criticism and media is that sci-fi and fantasy are 'inherently political' or words to those effect.

 

And thus ... To ask that 40k somehow isn't what anyone aspiring to write in the genre is usually taught that the genre is seems mad or even blind to what we are actually consuming. Yes it's this board's rules to not talk about it and we must acknowledge that - but crikey, you can't deny that one of the key definitions of the genre is its political thought experiment nature.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Petitioner's City

[StrangerOrders]

 

If you follow him on Twitter Gav has joined the ‘space marines are evil’ caucus and as I’m working through this book you can see him falling into the ‘Incompetant Authoritarian’ tropes with the relationships between the space marines and how they act. It’s more like a 40’s movie portrayal of German commanders or Cold War era Action Movie Soviets than the Bronze Age/Dark Age Demi-Gods we get in ADB novels.

Can you source this - Gav is a prolific tweeter, but what are his tweets for this?

 

---

 

Also in this thread people are commenting on an author exploring politics through their fiction. I dont get people saying sci-fi and politics don't mix - science fiction is often used for political fiction, from Capek's RUR and Lang's Metropolis to the works of Lem and Leguin and Roddenberry and Lucas and Dick and Stanely Robinson and thousands of others, and very much contemporary science fiction - say Corey writing duo, Iain Banks, Neil Gaiman or other scifi writers across media.

 

It's quite maddening to read a denial of the political nature of the genre when it is taught as political, and often received as political. Indeed a very common phrase describing science fiction in literary criticism and media is that sci-fi and fantasy are 'inherently political' or words to those effect.

 

And thus ... To ask that 40k somehow isn't what anyone aspiring to write in the genre is usually taught that the genre is seems mad or even blind to what we are actually consuming. Yes it's this board's rules to not talk about it and we must acknowledge that - but crikey, you can't deny that one of the key definitions of the genre is its political thought experiment nature.

 

Thats a bit of a misreading of what some are saying, or at least what i specifically was saying.

 

I don't mind politics in my fiction, although I have always caught a bit of a whiff of pretension behind the 'everything is political' crowd.

 

My point is more that you have to have it make sense in the context of the setting or at least from the perpsective of the worldview you establish for a given character.

 

Hence why I used the example of saying that its hard to swing religious tolerance for example as a stance in 40k, because its a setting where faith is literally a weapon. Not a social one, but one that can pretty specifically grant you the power to incinerate your mildly noisy neighbor with your mind provided to you ritually devour a baby every now and then. 

 

Which... isn't something I am aware of any real ideology doing. 

 

So... yeah, marines are fanatical monsters that would literally beat people to death to conserve ammo, making them outright tactically stupid egomaniacs motivated by impulse (specifically a chapter whose traditional defining weakness is a rigidity and slavish obedience to doctrine) does not add up. With their worldview or their indoctrination, it just doesn't fly. 

 

Had it been a sloppily run Black Templar ship? Sure, I'd buy it. 

 

But its sort of an easy trap to fall into, the better BL writers at least know that 'psychotic fanatic' can actually encompass quite a broad net and have worked hard to define it. And more specifically how they are distinct from each other and where they overlap. 

 

Making a cast morons due to their ideology does not really tell me at least anything about the author's intent, stance and their specific critique beyond that they correlate that ideology with total idiocy. Which I mean, pretty damned valid point given authoritarianism's track-record across a spectrum of ideological models, but thats hardly a unique position that needed restating.

 

The TLDR really is that there isn't anything wrong with making your work political, but making your work political in a way which is meant to be taken seriously as opposed to correlating idiocy with the ideology you are critiquing is just really weak. 

 

To borrow an example from outside 40k, I don't think the Expanse's Laconians come across as individually stupid people but the author is pretty scathing and persuasive as to why their ideology is hilariously flawed. The author is also not scared of displaying the pros and cons of the system while also obeying the rules of the setting and actually using that to feed into where their problems sprout from.

 

Making a work and making it overtly political are obviously fair game and some (who I happen to disagree with at times) would argue it cannot be unpolitical. But it does also come with the responsibility of making it intelligently political and persuasive in its critique or praise unless your sole object is to broadcast your fervent support of your stance. 

 

I think in as much as 40k is political ADB, Wraight, French and others do much more deft and persuasive take-downs almost offhandedly without at any point bucking against the setting or reducing their cast to caricatures. I hate to gush but Wraight in particular has really been flexing with this lately between his Vaults and the new Crime stuff. 

[caladancid]

 

If you follow him on Twitter Gav has joined the ‘space marines are evil’ caucus and as I’m working through this book you can see him falling into the ‘Incompetant Authoritarian’ tropes with the relationships between the space marines and how they act. It’s more like a 40’s movie portrayal of German commanders or Cold War era Action Movie Soviets than the Bronze Age/Dark Age Demi-Gods we get in ADB novels.

Can you source this - Gav is a prolific tweeter, but what are his tweets for this?

 

---

 

Also in this thread people are commenting on an author exploring politics through their fiction. I dont get people saying sci-fi and politics don't mix - science fiction is often used for political fiction, from Capek's RUR and Lang's Metropolis to the works of Lem and Leguin and Roddenberry and Lucas and Dick and Stanely Robinson and thousands of others, and very much contemporary science fiction - say Corey writing duo, Iain Banks, Neil Gaiman or other scifi writers across media.

 

It's quite maddening to read a denial of the political nature of the genre when it is taught as political, and often received as political. Indeed a very common phrase describing science fiction in literary criticism and media is that sci-fi and fantasy are 'inherently political' or words to those effect.

 

And thus ... To ask that 40k somehow isn't what anyone aspiring to write in the genre is usually taught that the genre is seems mad or even blind to what we are actually consuming. Yes it's this board's rules to not talk about it and we must acknowledge that - but crikey, you can't deny that one of the key definitions of the genre is its political thought experiment nature.

 

 

I think the problem is, Thorpe isn't good at mixing politics and sci-fi.  When an author writes well, my thought is who cares what particular opinion they are representing.  I like hearing other ideas it is when, as StrangerOrders says, it becomes a caricature that it bothers me.

 

I was just talking about Altered Carbon in another thread for a different point, but since it is on my mind I will use it here.  It is QUITE obvious how Richard Morgan feels about religion, but because he writes a great book it doesn't overwhelm or even bother me even though I personally don't share his views.  Gav Thorpe just isn't there.  When someone like him writes about political topics, it is done ham fisted and hurts the overall quality of the novel.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

If you follow him on Twitter Gav has joined the ‘space marines are evil’ caucus and as I’m working through this book you can see him falling into the ‘Incompetant Authoritarian’ tropes with the relationships between the space marines and how they act. It’s more like a 40’s movie portrayal of German commanders or Cold War era Action Movie Soviets than the Bronze Age/Dark Age Demi-Gods we get in ADB novels.

Can you source this - Gav is a prolific tweeter, but what are his tweets for this?

 

---

 

Also in this thread people are commenting on an author exploring politics through their fiction. I dont get people saying sci-fi and politics don't mix - science fiction is often used for political fiction, from Capek's RUR and Lang's Metropolis to the works of Lem and Leguin and Roddenberry and Lucas and Dick and Stanely Robinson and thousands of others, and very much contemporary science fiction - say Corey writing duo, Iain Banks, Neil Gaiman or other scifi writers across media.

 

It's quite maddening to read a denial of the political nature of the genre when it is taught as political, and often received as political. Indeed a very common phrase describing science fiction in literary criticism and media is that sci-fi and fantasy are 'inherently political' or words to those effect.

 

And thus ... To ask that 40k somehow isn't what anyone aspiring to write in the genre is usually taught that the genre is seems mad or even blind to what we are actually consuming. Yes it's this board's rules to not talk about it and we must acknowledge that - but crikey, you can't deny that one of the key definitions of the genre is its political thought experiment nature.

I don’t know how to search on Twitter. The most recent example of him applying real world topics to the lore was the thread about male Eldar being female while walking the path of the banshee and I found a tweet from someone else claiming he said not having female marines was stupid. There’s been several other threads this spring about the Imperium being the F word he jumped in on but the dude has like 200 tweets likes and replies from the past few weeks alone. I got to Mid June before I stopped looking and it took 20 mins to get there.

 

Not sure what this thread from two years ago is referencing

 

https://twitter.com/gavthorpecreate/status/965511390277586944?s=21

 

But ADB shows up and explains by the numbers why the imperium can’t be the f word, so that might lead to some more threads. I just don’t know how to trace the replies and stuff on Twitter.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[aa.logan]

Heaven forbid an ancient galaxy-spanning civilisation of alien beings have any conception of gender or social mores other than those commonly accepted in parts of Europe in the last few centuries.

 

All fiction is political. Science Fiction especially so, the choices of what to include and not include in fantastical visions are inherently political.

 

All of which is ground we’ve covered on here before. No-one is changing their mind and the same points get trotted out again and again.

 

So.

 

I’ve been thinking more about the book as a tie-in with a new box set- it certainly mentions all the shiny new units the Ultramarines have, but doesn’t really ‘sell them’; I’m still unsure about what makes the Primaris with shields special or really the difference between regular chaplains and the new guy with the big sword. I’m not sure if it being a catalogue of the stuff from the upcoming Codex would improve the book or not, but I would have liked to see these differences- the Outriders, for instance- does anything in their mindset set them apart from Interessors? Gav alludes to these distinctions in the forward but only explores them in the context of the officers.

[Marshal Rohr]

No one is trying to make any points. PC asked for references, I provided examples. Calm down.

[caladancid]

Heaven forbid an ancient galaxy-spanning civilisation of alien beings have any conception of gender or social mores other than those commonly accepted in parts of Europe in the last few centuries.

 

All fiction is political. Science Fiction especially so, the choices of what to include and not include in fantastical visions are inherently political.

 

All of which is ground we’ve covered on here before. No-one is changing their mind and the same points get trotted out again and again.

 

So.

 

I’ve been thinking more about the book as a tie-in with a new box set- it certainly mentions all the shiny new units the Ultramarines have, but doesn’t really ‘sell them’; I’m still unsure about what makes the Primaris with shields special or really the difference between regular chaplains and the new guy with the big sword. I’m not sure if it being a catalogue of the stuff from the upcoming Codex would improve the book or not, but I would have liked to see these differences- the Outriders, for instance- does anything in their mindset set them apart from Interessors? Gav alludes to these distinctions in the forward but only explores them in the context of the officers.

 

I am not sure what that means, particularly the part about the same points being 'trotted' out? Seems like a reasonable discussion to me so far at any rate.

[aa.logan]

Much like the ranking of authors that seems to happen once a thread reaches a certain length, as soon as mention of ‘real world politics’ is made, the same few points are made in the same fashion, the rules of the forum are invoked and all that has been achieved is folk have riled up one another. I know this, because it’s often me making the same points.

 

I’m all for full-throttled discourse, but here isn’t the place.

 

I’d rather we didn’t retread the same ground that has derailed too many threads.

 

Regardless of *why* the officers were written to be lacking in protocol or an ability to relate to non-transhumans, it is total out of character with the nature of their chapter. A better book would have maybe explored this,

 

Again- does anyone think that the book would have been improved by doubling down on showing what makes the new units distinct and different from those already seen in BL books?

[Kelborn]

May we return to the novel and drop that one before someone's stepping on someones toes, most likely on mine? :P

 

I already stepped on LEGO which my son forgot to put away. Guess we all know how that hurts and we all agree to avoid it a second time, eh?

[StrangerOrders]

 

Again- does anyone think that the book would have been improved by doubling down on showing what makes the new units distinct and different from those already seen in BL books?

Infinitely, because I was left with more questions than answers.

 

Wait, Primaris have drop pods that can combot drop bikes? Can we hear more about them since they only existed via vox calls?

 

How does having shredded fortress in your hour glass manipulate time? Is it sorcery? Do all Judiciars need it? How the heck do more remote chapters get their honorary piece of fortress?

 

Why does having a skeleton strapped to your shield negate mortal wounds (basically they mechanically let you resist fatal attacks)? Who the heck let him have it when Ultras are pretty keen on entombing most of their dead? More sorcery? If the shield is 4k years old why was it scaled to be so big? Was it reforged or did the UM have a weird gigantism period?

 

It all follows in this vein and its doubly annoying because he did a very good job I think describing the why's and hows of the Necron stuff and their wargear. I didn't like the book but I am happy to heavily praise the additions to Necron fluff, I now know how Destroyers, Plasmancers, Babysitters (alright, Royal Wardens) and the like function and what makes them distinct.

 

But, much like with almost all of the Vanguard stuff, I am left scratching my head as to why it works and how. Moreso even since I can extrapolate alot from how the similar Reivers are detailed in other works as opposed to the very stark departure of the Indomitus models. 

 

I'm hoping DoF goes into depth on them honestly, because I came out very confused on that end. I dislike heavy adverts as much as the next guy, but BL is also how I come to understand models in detail alot of the time.

[aa.logan]

Even more basically, at what point did the first person decide to strap the skeleton to the shield? Why? It’s not like the other Marine stuff that can be waved away with “centuries of tradition gradually warping and distorting actions”; these are a new invention. Was it Cawl? Was it a battlefield adaption? That I’d much rather read.

[Tyriks]

Man, that's like the last thing I want from 40k fiction.