State of Health for Grimdark in Warhammer 40,000

[Scribe]

Lexington, the term has moved on. It is it's own definition now, beyond 40K, or even GW IP.

 

I do agree something was lost in the newer formats, even in Fantasy go back to like, 6th, and the books just evoke something.

 

Flip through 8th (Fantasy) and it's just not there.

 

Necron 3rd, vs the last one? Same thing.

 

Whatever you want to call it, the core darkness remains, but yes, some of that grit and grime and weird, went missing.

[Scribe]

I mean it has its own Wiki!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimdark#:~:text=Grimdark%20is%20a%20subgenre%20of,future%20there%20is%20only%20war.%22

[Lucerne]

 

 

 

The problem is that there's a very bad case of "Imperial protagonist" syndrome even by GW standards as well as "informed grimdark". It's not even a question of grimdark so much as a failure to have suitable consequences for the protagonist- ie: Bobby G and friends, which is in itself a mistake- to overcome, and show them overcome.

 

A character is only as significant as the adversity they face, and that rings very hollow with GW's lore. Their actions should also have suitable and proportionate consequences, and that's perhaps even more flawed.

 

Where is the new Calth? Where are the losses for Guilliman to suffer?

So far all Guilliman has are hollow victories. Even the Indomitus Crusade ended with a proclamation of "victory" and yet he admits it was like throwing a thimble of water on a house fire.

For "hollow victories", the narrative certainly doesn't seem interested in showing said consequences whatsoever. It fails at "show don't tell".

 

It's all well and good to say the toy catalogue scenes are "hollow victories" but where is his bloody nose or viewpoint from the worlds that he DIDN'T save? Why is there tunnel vision on him doing uninteresting and non-developmental things that explicitly serve no purpose in universe whatsoever?

 

Even superman stories have the decency to have someone show up with kryptonite or otherwise knock him down a peg or so every so often, but GW's writers haven't learned that little trick.

I don't think you've read much of the narrative if you think this. Are you getting your info from 1d4 chan? I ask this in all seriousness because what you're describing doesn't match what I've been reading - and I've read a lot of books that take place after the opening of the rift.

 

Guilliman does have personal victories, yet they ultimately amount to nothing. The situation is so dire that at this point nothing has improved or changed for the better.

 

The heroes of the setting are merely holding the darkness back, and for much of the Imperium the situation is worse than it had ever been. You should read a novel like "Darkness in the Blood" to see how things are worse than ever and in many ways more hopeless.

 

Well, Ish, I'll give your opinions and, ah...thoughts exactly the weight and validity they deserve. As usual. Given the source.

 

In the actual lore, Guilliman's victories are allegedly inconsequential yet that's never actually shown, nor are there meaningful setbacks. Saying that Guilliman is "winning the battles but losing the war" is a moot point when the narrative focuses entirely on every single obnoxious, phoned-in tale of victory, without any meaningful consequences.

 

Also, while an adequate novel that acts as yet another episode of the ongoing blood angels soap opera, darkness in the blood doesn't actually depict what you- I'm sure in good faith- claim it does. Unlike Ultramarine stories, it's a perfectly adequate if rather unnecessary story about Blood Angels doing what they set out to do with a few hiccups without massively upending the narrative or ignoring repercussions, but that in itself is its own issue.

 

But it honestly doesn't seem to have much bearing on the inadequacy of cawl and Guilliman centric stories so it may as well have been a randomly selected BL story on your part for all the relevance it has to the failure of that narrative and most Nihlus narratives to date. (Spears of the Emperor is a notable exception)

Edited December 1, 2020 by Lucerne

[Ishagu]

That's your subjective opinion and outlook. Perhaps you need to consider that you simply don't enjoy the 40k fiction.

[chapter master 454]

I mean what do you want from a grimdark universe? Or is it you don't want grimdark but the over the top silliness of the "good ol' days" through rose tinted glasses. Not to say there isn't glorious pieces of artwork or memorable stories but ultimately everything changes and it may not be to your liking sadly.

 

Played League of Legends myself for best part of 5 odd years fairly solidly, playing everyday. Then it just lost appeal to me, no-one I knew was playing really and ultimately I found that the champions were losing their charm to me and their direction of balance and playstyles weren't what I enjoyed nor remembered. I sunk a lot of money into it but ultimately I let it go as painful as it was, I still do yearn for yesteryears but sadly we can not go back to them.

 

Not saying there isn't valid complaints to be leveled at 40k's current direction and styling but no product can stay the same forever. It has to evolve and carry on and ultimately it sucks when you are part of the group they chose to lose because the gain is far greater. Sad but that is how the exterminatus kills.

[Evil Eye]

*Snip*

Thank you.

 

Grimdark was, IIRC, a term that originated on /tg/ to poke affectionate fun at the excess of (occasionally excruciating) bleakness in the setting, usually in reference to the...interesting days of late 3rd-4th editions, which were decidedly No Fun Allowed with their applications of Grimdark. And say what you will about 4chan, they were absolutely right! This was the era that went full "hurr we are mature durr" with the setting, trying to divorce themselves from the era of "This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek universe made of hard rock albums, sci-fi novels and whatever else we liked at the time" in favour of aiming for a completely played straight "everything sucks all the time" setting. And whilst there were some gems from the era, there was also a lot of utter crap. Let's not forget they tried to kill off Makari. Yeah, well they didn't do a very good job, did they? Shhhh, not now me boy, we'll krump 'em later...

 

Ahem.

 

Ironically, some of the coolest moments in 40K fluff are some of the less bleak and depressing bits- Grimaldus' speech rousing the inhabitants of Armageddon to fight back against the Orks, Pedro Kantor (I think?) carrying an exhausted mother and her child across Rynn's World, etc. Having horrific tragedy only really works if it's in contrast with outstanding heroism and enduring humanity. A non-stop barrage of "And then the Chaos Space Marine punched the child in the face whilst telling her that Santa Claus isn't real" isn't shocking or moving, it's just trite.

 

And it's not like the galaxy is now a happy gothic-decorated theme park. One of my "favourite" parts from the Death Guard Codex is the mention of the existentially terrifying locations known as disease factories. Entire worlds purpose-built to the propagation of hideous contagions, presumably resembling a planet-scaled Unit 731- as a concept, that's absolutely chilling.

[Bryan Blaire]

As long as the setting maintains a homeostasis of bright spots to crap-sack, which it still is regardless of which specific parts seem highlighted based on personal interpretation of GW's texts, 40K is still the "grim darkness of the far future". You can still find darkness or bright spots to enjoy as you will and can even write more and feel free to ignore however much of GW's text as you always could.

 

The setting is definitely not moving more toward happiness and light - even the lack of consequences for seemingly anyone except the no-name characters is simply homeostasis - for every inconsequential victory, there's also an inconsequential loss.

[Rik Lightstar]

I mean what do you want from a grimdark universe? Or is it you don't want grimdark but the over the top silliness of the "good ol' days" through rose tinted glasses. Not to say there isn't glorious pieces of artwork or memorable stories but ultimately everything changes and it may not be to your liking sadly.

 

Played League of Legends myself for best part of 5 odd years fairly solidly, playing everyday. Then it just lost appeal to me, no-one I knew was playing really and ultimately I found that the champions were losing their charm to me and their direction of balance and playstyles weren't what I enjoyed nor remembered. I sunk a lot of money into it but ultimately I let it go as painful as it was, I still do yearn for yesteryears but sadly we can not go back to them.

 

Not saying there isn't valid complaints to be leveled at 40k's current direction and styling but no product can stay the same forever. It has to evolve and carry on and ultimately it sucks when you are part of the group they chose to lose because the gain is far greater. Sad but that is how the exterminatus kills.

 

And even if the setting stays "true to itself" as suggested, you will change as an individual.

 

What once struck us as engaging, daring and exciting is now a trope. The tone and content may not have changed but how we view it will change as we change.

 

I've seen this a lot of times with series of fantasy books, friends will make recommendations of books that they've loved since their teens, yet when I read them I struggle to see the appeal of them, and likewise for books I've treasured.

 

Your first impressions and they way you felt and engaged on your first encounter with something stick with you way past the point where you've forgotten the specifics, like watching a classic movie with close family.

 

As a 40 year old having been into Games Workshop products for in excess of 30 years I've no doubt that I've changed far more than the tone and direction of the 40k setting.

 

Rik

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well put Rik .

[Halandaar]

As a 40 year old having been into Games Workshop products for in excess of 30 years I've no doubt that I've changed far more than the tone and direction of the 40k setting.

I think this is an interesting point, and reminds me of one that has arisen around World of Warcraft recently; without going into too much detail, a developer left citing unhappiness with how different the modern game is from the original and particularly a lower emphasis on Guilds to allow people to engage in more content as individuals.

 

What he failed to acknowledge was that in the 16 years it has been going, the habits of the people playing it have changed significantly. People who started out playing as students are now parents, and actually there is a lot more demand for the kind of playstyle that doesn't rely on schedules and teams than there used to be.

 

It's maybe only a superficially similar thing, given that this topic is about perceived change whereas WoW is about explaining actual change, but in both cases it seems that people find it easier to point to the product rather than consider that the biggest change is in the consumer.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

The change in Codex format somewhere in 4th Edition to include full-page background text for damn near unit in the game definitely really didn't do the setting any favors. No one needs mounds of adjective-fluffed flavor text explaining the distinguished history of, like, the Rhino. It is a transport. It gets the Marines from Point A to Point B. That's all we need to know.

 

That stuff was all there in the 2nd ed codexes, the 2nd ed wargear book had more detailed weapon descriptions than anything in 4th and onwards. 3rd ed is an aberration caused by them halving the cost of the books from £15 to £8. This was the era back when warhammer fantasy plastics went from 8 identical low quality guys for £5 with you then having to spend £4-£8 on blisters for the command group to coming in customisable £10 boxes of 16 or 20 with command figures included (at first in metal upgrade parts that got replaced by sprues). Then the guys who wanted building an army to be cheap and accessible all moved over to the Lord of the Rings game and the 'more detail, higher quality' ones took over the old product lines slowly leading to where we are now.

 

The business culture that lead to slim books that could be saved up for with pocket money isn't there.

 

Personally I find the lack of detail in equipment horrendously frustrating, with the random meaningless names of the Forgeworld Adeptus Custodes guns being the worst experience to play against. If a rhino just moves from point a to point be it should have the same stats and rules as an Ork Truck or a Dark Eldar Venom.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[smileyjim]

I'd say the only good faction is tyranids.

 

The hive mind has no real malice, no hatred or envy, no lust for control (yes blood angels pissed it off but it doesn't hate any faction just because), it only has an agenda of survival, an all consuming hunger to nuture and propagate itself.

 

It would be perfectly happy if all the biomass in the galaxy was bacteria, it doesn't want to kill it just wants to feed

[Ishagu]

The Hive Mind does hate the Blood Angels, and it made errors trying to get to them as quickly as possible such as not totally consuming words in it's path.

[Medjugorje]

Personly i miss some of the humor they had in older publications.

Stuff from the comics like The Redeemer or Deff Skwadron.

Or some of the pop culture references you could find like the Holy Handgrenade.

 

The feeling of grimdark but at the same time so much over the top it cant be taken serious and ends up hilarious.

I prefer the current status.  Maybe GW could write their new introduced lore better but I like it more serious

[Xenith]

Good morning folks!

 

A consistent theme in innumerable great comments on DakkaDakka forum and Reddit about background writings, discussions and doodles which I've posted, is the impression of Warhammer 40'000 having been diluted down and lost its grimdark ways in later years.

 

 

This topic pops up once every few months. Search Grimdark on the site and you'll likely find those discussions.

 

My answer to this is that the people that say it's getting diluted, are, dollars to doughnuts, probably the same people that perpetuate the 'failbaddon' meme. i.e., those who skim he material, don't actually read it, then mouth off on the internet.

 

Maybe their actual argument is that 40k art is now in colour, and not black and white that it used to be. This is an art and production choice, not the nature of the setting. 

 

While there was a slight cartoony artstyle in the way chapter heraldry was presented around 6th and 7th ed, this was again, art style. 9th seems to be hitting all the right tonal notes, with the weird mosaic images, the handwritten notes in the corners, etc. It's reminding me of the old Liber Chaotica books, which is a good thing. 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

 

As a 40 year old having been into Games Workshop products for in excess of 30 years I've no doubt that I've changed far more than the tone and direction of the 40k setting.

I think this is an interesting point, and reminds me of one that has arisen around World of Warcraft recently; without going into too much detail, a developer left citing unhappiness with how different the modern game is from the original and particularly a lower emphasis on Guilds to allow people to engage in more content as individuals.

 

What he failed to acknowledge was that in the 16 years it has been going, the habits of the people playing it have changed significantly. People who started out playing as students are now parents, and actually there is a lot more demand for the kind of playstyle that doesn't rely on schedules and teams than there used to be.

 

It's maybe only a superficially similar thing, given that this topic is about perceived change whereas WoW is about explaining actual change, but in both cases it seems that people find it easier to point to the product rather than consider that the biggest change is in the consumer.

I'm sure we could turn this into an epic discussion, but that Dev wasn't wrong.

 

Stick to the game that you wanted to create. Following what the user base thought they wanted ruined WoW.

 

Classic was released for a reason. :D

[Bung]

 

 

Personly i miss some of the humor they had in older publications.

Stuff from the comics like The Redeemer or Deff Skwadron.

Or some of the pop culture references you could find like the Holy Handgrenade.

 

The feeling of grimdark but at the same time so much over the top it cant be taken serious and ends up hilarious.

I prefer the current status. Maybe GW could write their new introduced lore better but I like it more serious

The best models and armies have been based on the non serious stuff or you wouldnt have the Sisters army, Sly Marbo and things Like the Snotzogga.

If you want serious sci fi i dont look at 40k grab some Asimov novels or something like that.

[Lexington]

Lexington, the term has moved on. It is it's own definition now, beyond 40K, or even GW IP.

Yeah, very much so - the meme has taken hold, and will not be coaxed away any time soon. As said, I toil in vain, here, but I still think it's a bad word to describe the essential kernel of 40K. The definition you linked, in fact, fits modern 40K much better than it does anything from the olden days.

That stuff was all there in the 2nd ed codexes [...]

There's a shelf of 2nd Edition books sitting beside me that disagree with you on that point.

You're right about the Wargear book, of course. However, I'd say there's a pretty essential difference between what that book is doing - fairly straightforwardly detailing the workings of sci-fi weaponry - and the way a lot of more recent Codexes spend paragraphs of breathless purple prose explaining how basic transport vehicles were pivotal in the defeat of Lord Horribulus during the Kablooie Crusade at the hands of the Emperor's Footsloggers Chapter. 9th Edition books have gotten a lot better about this, but there was a pretty long stretch of time where unit entries were stuffed with cringeworthy "historical" filler.

[Bryan Blaire]

I'd actually prefer them limit unit descriptions to about two to three paragraphs, and actually give us a paragraph or two per wargear item. Have historical text in an actual history section, and expand individual entries in the section.

 

Also, I think you can very much have a "serious tone" in the writing while still having a game that is less than serious topically, especially if approached from a "in-universe narrator" point of view - you could write all kinds of absurd stuff that's played straight in-universe because it's what the people there believe with a straight face.

 

The comedy elements don't have to be written to make you laugh out loud like a comedy piece, they can just make you smirk and shake your head.

 

The grim darkness of the far future is still and has always been an absurd place anyway.

[Snazzy]

 

 

Dogma absolutely prevailed there. 

 

They view the Emperor as a literal god. Guilliman, as his "son", is the closest thing to divinity that they have ever been able to personally interact with. He is nothing less than a demigod in their eyes and their religious beliefs demand that they obey his decrees without question. 

 

 

That only goes so far.  The AdMech rolled over, despite their distance from the Imperial Cult.  The Astartes needed to be convinced at the end of a gun using the Custodes.  It clearly wasn't a seamless transformation.  The point is that the setting itself was sold as being stuck, stagnate and hostile to change.  GW changed that to sell the Primaris.  Fine.  It's still Grimdark, especially visually.  The setting's basic concept has been compromised to accommodate.

 

I'd also argue there's non business related places where this is the case, as well.  The failure of the Golden Throne resulting in the acts with the Drukhari didn't (so far) result in any new product lines.  It was a weird choice to introduce that plot thread if it ends in betraying the core hostility to Xenos the Imperium has had since the beginning.

 

 

That stuff was all there in the 2nd ed codexes, the 2nd ed wargear book had more detailed weapon descriptions than anything in 4th and onwards. 3rd ed is an aberration caused by them halving the cost of the books from £15 to £8. This was the era back when warhammer fantasy plastics went from 8 identical low quality guys for £5 with you then having to spend £4-£8 on blisters for the command group to coming in customisable £10 boxes of 16 or 20 with command figures included (at first in metal upgrade parts that got replaced by sprues). Then the guys who wanted building an army to be cheap and accessible all moved over to the Lord of the Rings game and the 'more detail, higher quality' ones took over the old product lines slowly leading to where we are now.

 

The business culture that lead to slim books that could be saved up for with pocket money isn't there.

 

Personally I find the lack of detail in equipment horrendously frustrating, with the random meaningless names of the Forgeworld Adeptus Custodes guns being the worst experience to play against. If a rhino just moves from point a to point be it should have the same stats and rules as an Ork Truck or a Dark Eldar Venom.

 

 

2nd edition was itself an aberration because it had the first box set.  Elements like the Codex Imperialis and the Wargear book were necessary to sell the setting because there was more of a clean break from RT than i would argue any edition after.  Also, wasn't there a wargear book in 4th edition?

 

 

Maybe their actual argument is that 40k art is now in colour, and not black and white that it used to be. This is an art and production choice, not the nature of the setting. 

 

 

I don't know that there is a quantifiable critique, as so much as a general suspicion that things are getting a little too well designed, a little too professional, a little corporate and a lot less quirky.  It reminds me of the Soul vs Souless debates regarding models.  The old models have Soul because they were products of hand sculpting and having distorted proportions by way of the 28mm Heroic scale.  The old art had soul because it was drawn or painted by hand.  New models and artwork have too much computer aided influence and are accused of being "too perfect" or "too samey" to other game artwork, like modern MTG.  Nevermind that Wayne England, the Great Grandaddy of 40K iconography was an oldschool MTG artist.

 

And, i can't fully dismiss these complaints, because we all fall in love with 40K at different eras, for different reasons.  40K has a long fandom.  I suspect most of the Soul vs Souless and Grimdark Dilution critics are long time fans, not new ones.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Snazzy

[Volt]

 

 

 

The problem is that there's a very bad case of "Imperial protagonist" syndrome even by GW standards as well as "informed grimdark". It's not even a question of grimdark so much as a failure to have suitable consequences for the protagonist- ie: Bobby G and friends, which is in itself a mistake- to overcome, and show them overcome.

 

A character is only as significant as the adversity they face, and that rings very hollow with GW's lore. Their actions should also have suitable and proportionate consequences, and that's perhaps even more flawed.

 

Where is the new Calth? Where are the losses for Guilliman to suffer?

So far all Guilliman has are hollow victories. Even the Indomitus Crusade ended with a proclamation of "victory" and yet he admits it was like throwing a thimble of water on a house fire.

For "hollow victories", the narrative certainly doesn't seem interested in showing said consequences whatsoever. It fails at "show don't tell".

 

It's all well and good to say the toy catalogue scenes are "hollow victories" but where is his bloody nose or viewpoint from the worlds that he DIDN'T save? Why is there tunnel vision on him doing uninteresting and non-developmental things that explicitly serve no purpose in universe whatsoever?

 

Even superman stories have the decency to have someone show up with kryptonite or otherwise knock him down a peg or so every so often, but GW's writers haven't learned that little trick.

I don't think you've read much of the narrative if you think this. Are you getting your info from 1d4 chan? I ask this in all seriousness because what you're describing doesn't match what I've been reading - and I've read a lot of books that take place after the opening of the rift.

 

Guilliman does have personal victories, yet they ultimately amount to nothing. The situation is so dire that at this point nothing has improved or changed for the better.

 

The heroes of the setting are merely holding the darkness back, and for much of the Imperium the situation is worse than it had ever been. You should read a novel like "Darkness in the Blood" to see how things are worse than ever and in many ways more hopeless.

 

The situation is dire, yet somehow zero permanent consequences have actually happened or permanent deaths.

 

The issue is that novels can say whatever, but there is no actual sensation of there being a war with losses. The defeats or hollow victories have no weights because nothing is actually lost that the reader cares about in the process, just some nebulous and unmapped sensation of retraction. Cadia blew up, but that was in seventh and didn't even kill off the Cadians and GW didn't even have the cojones to kill off Creed. The Great Rift isn't really even the Great Rift because supplies are in great enough supply that everybody in the north has Primaris now, making any sensation of the Imperium Nihilus actually being cut off moot. Especially with the introduction of Guilliman, now would be the perfect time to lay into the Ultramarines character roster and start collecting heads to grow the sense of there actually being dire consequences - but as usual characters are immortal and there's no real sense of tension, because we know anybody with a name is perfectly OK at the end of the day. Grimdark doesn't work at all if you know for a bloody fact that the entire HQ roster is an immortal and invincible demigod who can only ever be injured for the umpteenth time.

[Ishagu]

The lore is tied to the models so they aren't going to go wild with killing off characters, and nor should they.

 

That's your personal and subjective desire.

 

It would be more interesting for Abaddon/Mortarion or some of the other traitors to be killed off as any complaint about "invincible" heroes is magnified many times over for some of these characters who are around after 10k years.

[Volt]

 

 

Maybe their actual argument is that 40k art is now in colour, and not black and white that it used to be. This is an art and production choice, not the nature of the setting. 

 

 

I don't know that there is a quantifiable critique, as so much as a general suspicion that things are getting a little too well designed, a little too professional, a little corporate and a lot less quirky.  It reminds me of the Soul vs Souless debates regarding models.  The old models have Soul because they were products of hand sculpting and having distorted proportions by way of the 28mm Heroic scale.  The old art had soul because it was drawn or painted by hand.  New models and artwork have too much computer aided influence and are accused of being "too perfect" or "too samey" to other game artwork, like modern MTG.  Nevermind that Wayne England, the Great Grandaddy of 40K iconography was an oldschool MTG artist.

 

And, i can't fully dismiss these complaints, because we all fall in love with 40K at different eras, for different reasons.  40K has a long fandom.  I suspect most of the Soul vs Souless and Grimdark Dilution critics are long time fans, not new ones.

 

Color absolutely has something to do with it because color changes the way an art piece is felt. I'll pull some stuff from my imgur as examples.

 

 

So here we have the same art piece of the same figure, but later colorized by more recent GW artists. Color is a powerful tool in art, and it's readily apparent in the comparison. The first picture is quite tonal and fits the idea of the Grey Knights well in the binaric nature of the shades. It is a bleak, dour environment and the Grey Knight itself is the chief source of light in the image, contrasting the surrounding darkness along with the other Brothers as the source of illumination. The brush strokes are also far more evident, providing the work with a clear and visceral texture that is observed immediately, mostly with the light and the surrounding whispy darkness which fits the nature of the Warp quite well. You don't need a palette to convey emotion or themes.

 

But then we look to the colorization, and immediately it changes things drastically. The lighting now has multiple sources, no longer the Brothers themselves but an unseen source above them and the ground they stand on. There is also no longer a contrast, the brothers even begin to get lost in the background as the shades mull together and there is no stark differentiation between them and the background. The intensity of the light emanating from the Brothers is also lost now, being muddled with the unseen light source and surrounding environmental illumination. The colorization process also obfuscates much of the brush strokes, robing the piece of most of its texture and completely removing the whispy nature of the piece. Gradience is also surprisingly lost, with the original background being shades of darkness whereas now it's just an amorphous brown blob with rays of light permeating the sky. Quite clearly it's a step down and tarnishes the piece from its original intention, the colorization was unnecessary and the desire for photorealism if anything detracts from the work compared to the original state.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Volt

[Scribe]

I don't think I've seen a side by side show just how much better the BW version is.

 

Shockingly better. I'm surprised the colorization is official.

[Snazzy]

The lore is tied to the models so they aren't going to go wild with killing off characters, and nor should they.

 

That's your personal and subjective desire.

 

It would be more interesting for Abaddon/Mortarion or some of the other traitors to be killed off as any complaint about "invincible" heroes is magnified many times over for some of these characters who are around after 10k years.

 

40K is a character driven setting.  They serve the purposes of the brand.  That's why pre-Primaris special characters cross the Rubicon.  It "endorses" the notion of the Primaris.  Much the same, characters get away, shake a fist at the enemy and vow revenge more often than we'd expect in such a deadly setting.  It is pro wrestling.

 

There are some weird examples, like the conflict between Pedro Kantor and Cortez, who hasn't had a model in... 15 years?  I get that it was a historically set novel.  Just weird that they dug up a character with a dead model.