Sanguinius: The Great Angel (17) (The Horus Heresy: Primarchs)

[Nagashsnee]

2 hours ago, DukeLeto69 said:

I have not played a TT game for about 20 or so years! I am an old timer who started out playing First Edition 40k (Rogue Trader) in late 80s. Played 2nd and a little bit of 3rd but then...life, wife, kids (same for all my gaming friends). However, Black Library (and codexes etc) kept me invested in the setting/lore which I still love.

 

When I did play my armies were strictly homebrew (and a bit crap, painting wise and my tactics lol).

I would say this and the Perturabo one are both in my view 100% worth a read if you have any interest in these legions Primarchs. But of the two Perturabos book is the one that ties into the heresy, 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Nagashsnee

[lightinfa]

5 hours ago, DukeLeto69 said:

I have not bought or read a single Primarchs series novel for that very reason. What is this series supposed to be?

 

I had hoped they would use this series as Origin/Great Crusade/Explain why they and their legions have certain traits etc. I definitely wanted a pre-HH setting for these to flesh out the Great Crusade.

 

So that, combined with mixed reviews, meant I avoided.

 

But if I was to pick up an individual book (rather than invest in another series) should it be this one?

 

Alpharius is the one primarch novel I would call a must read - fantastically well-written while doing some very fun stuff with the lore (and unlike a lot of them it keeps the focus squarely on the primarch himself).

 

Sanguinius is utterly brilliant but I can see how it would disappoint people who were hoping to get more BA background fleshed out. It's a lot like Prospero Burns in that normal human observer is thrust into close contact with them, slowly learns their secrets; the narrator absolutely is the main character, and it is as much his story as it is Sanguinius' or the Blood Angels'. This is a story about the idea of Sanguinius/BA, and it is interested in Sanguinius' relationship to that idea/myth, but it's less interested in revealing some part of his backstory we don't know. Prospero Burns is my favorite BL novel and I don't have any special attachment to the Blood Angels, so I was a big fan of this - the narrator is a fantastically alive character who brings a fun, dissolute cynicism to the enterprise and ideals of the Great Crusade. I always enjoy stories that emphasize the inhumanity/alienness of Space Marines, and that absolutely is a central theme of this one. Also would not be surprised to hear if Wraight put a lot of himself into the protagonist (or at least the archetypal mindsets and challenges of a writer). And it ends with a perfectly executed grimdark gut punch (a much better version of what Rogal Dorn tried to do).

 

[aa.logan]

Most of the Primarchs novels so far I’d say are absolutely worth checking out- with Fulgrim, Perturabo, Curze, Sanguinius, Angron, Lorgar, Corax and Alpharius standing out as my favourite titles, each with a lot to recommend them, adding things to the wider Heresy. The others all have their merits, but I’m in no hurry to revisit Manus or Vulcan. 

[godking]

Finished it yesterday evening.

 

10/10 even the downer ending.

 

This book also underscores the main difference between Sanguinus and Kurze .

 

Both have the ability to see glimpses of the future but Sanguinus never quit or gave in to despair unlike Kurze.

[grailkeeper]

I'm not a Wraight Fanboy but I quite enjoyed this.

 

It felt shorter than other Primarch books I've read.

 

Particularly liked the ending. 

[cheywood]

I have a mixed view of the Primarch books I’ve read - good moments at times but far too much combat and far too little insight into the eponymous characters. Sanguinius, thankfully, is filled with beautiful insights and relatively little in the way of boring combat scenes. Between the excellent first person prose, the vivid depictions of the duality at the heart of the Blood Angels, and the enduring focus on what the Crusade feels like to the normal citizens of the Imperium I was satisfied from start to finish. I could dive into it in greater depth but I think others have already expressed a lot of my thoughts. I wish we could go back in time and make all the Primarch novels from the perspective of remembrancers or iterators or anyone other than the Primarchs and their sons. 

[Xenith]

I finished this last week, and like the BA, I'm still torn.

 

I was less...happy? after reading it than I was with the other Primarch books, however after some introspection, I think I came away with a much deeper understanding of the BA's soul as a Legion, and by extension, Sanguinius's.

 

Spoiler

What they were, he is. 

 

[lansalt]

I liked it, but this book feels more like an introduction to the Heresy era Blood Angels than a book about Sanguinius himself. It seems made to be read before Fear to Tread.

I guess it was inevitable since most real insights about Sanguinius are in that novel or in other stories (like Echoes of Eternity), but it's still a bit underwhelming.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

I finished this last week, and like the BA, I'm still torn.

 

I was less...happy? after reading it than I was with the other Primarch books, however after some introspection, I think I came away with a much deeper understanding of the BA's soul as a Legion, and by extension, Sanguinius's.

 

  Hide contents

What they were, he is. 

 

To be honest that’s something I didn’t understand.

He isn’t.

 

 

[cheywood]

8 hours ago, Arkangilos said:

To be honest that’s something I didn’t understand.

He isn’t.

 

 

As I understood it, this connects back to what Qruze says about the Legions being defined by their primarch’s gene seed. Everything the Blood Angels were Sanguinius is, because their genetic reality and the expression it takes is determined by his gene seed.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Exactly. Sanguinius has the same instincts that led to the Revenant Legion being what it was, he has the same struggles. He just had the mind and will of a Primarch to begin to mask it, and to create the outer veneer that he taught to his Legion.

[lansalt]

But have we ever seen Sanguinius "bad side" in any story? This book maybe should have been the place to explore it when he was young in Baal, but instead it's a repetition of the classic BA themes from an outsider's view. A good story, but still nothing really new.

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

A good story, but still nothing really new.

 

Yea, this was my feeling from it also. It reinforced those themes well. Maybe Wraight was just doing as the other rembrancer said, and not actually portraying Sanguinius as the blood mad berzerker within. I haven't read echoes yet, but I'd imagine that he should be revealing that side at some point, or we've already seen Sanguinius angry at some time.

 

Nevertheless, it's already been shown elsewhere (maybe Malevolence?) that Sanguinius also has the thirst for blood and the desire to rend limb from limb, however it's his supreme control as a super-being that allows him to suppress it. Likewise, we've also seen the discrete offing of thirst afflicted characters.

 

Spoiler

I didn't like the suggestion that they're removed and taken on ships back to Baal - we see in FtT that Sangy just put some out of their misery, while the locking up of the monsters was said to be in the tower of Amareo, an early chapter master, so the full descent into blood madness/beasts was maybe only witnessed by the Blood Angels en-masse post heresy, as Sangy had clamped down on it.

 

"What they were, he is, what he was, they are" or whatever, kind of also implies that if they descend into the blood rage/beast mode...that Sanguinius might also do this. A literal beast inside and explanation for the wings. Or maybe the beast within his blood is too great and it causes the metamorphosis in his sons instead. 

 

[lansalt]

Yeah, besides what you say, I also didn't like how the lower decks of the Red Tear were inhabited by rejects. It felt anachronic in pre-heresy 30k after we've seen of other legion warships, not to mention going against Sanguinius' character. I also don't recall that being the case in Fear to Tread.

[cheywood]

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

Yeah, besides what you say, I also didn't like how the lower decks of the Red Tear were inhabited by rejects. It felt anachronic in pre-heresy 30k after we've seen of other legion warships, not to mention going against Sanguinius' character. I also don't recall that being the case in Fear to Tread.

One of the secondary themes of the book, at least to my mind, is that the Imperium was decaying even as it was being built. The prologue opens with a reflection on the subject and the presence of lower deck inhabitants reinforces that. 
 

edit: and it kinda seemed like the lower decks were used as a source for the Blood Angels’ drinks

Edited December 21, 2022 by cheywood

[Fedor]

This was good, though more as just a very atmospheric 30k BA story, rather than doing anything too extensive with Sanguinius himself. I was perfectly fine with it, but no doubt it'll split opinion for those that wanted a lot more direct Sang involvement.

 

Wraight should have had it be Sanguinius that drinks the investigative writer dry, after finally coming to the conclusion the wider fledgling imperium needed the flawless propaganda figure rather than the truth after all. Heavy handed? sure, but it would have wrapped up the Dracula vibe nicely.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Fedor

[Arkangilos]

17 hours ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

Exactly. Sanguinius has the same instincts that led to the Revenant Legion being what it was, he has the same struggles. He just had the mind and will of a Primarch to begin to mask it, and to create the outer veneer that he taught to his Legion.

But my problem with that is that it isn’t a mask.

 

Plus, the phrase “what they were he is, what he was they are” implies he went backwards while they went forward.

 

I guess that’s my issue with the story. It implies that controlling your hunger is merely making a mask, but it isn’t the case. Sanguinius isn’t a monster that hides his bad side, neither are the legionaries. 
 

They are (him and his sons) “cursed” people who largely overcame and learned to control their curse. That isn’t making a mask, that’s growing as person. Do they still have concupiscence? Yes, and often they fall. But it isn’t the concupiscence that defines them, it is their *desire to not give in to it* that does. 
 

Instead it’s just a “oh, no they’re totally monsters that are just faking it so they can look like the heroes we need :) “

 

Like don’t get me wrong, I like the story, but the perspective is from a guy that I would hate in real life. He’s got a terrible philosophy and a stupid outlook on life, and while it was an enjoyable book I just don’t like the main character, the theme, the underlying philosophy, or any of that. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Arkangilos

[Arkangilos]

10 hours ago, Xenith said:

Nevertheless, it's already been shown elsewhere (maybe Malevolence?) that Sanguinius also has the thirst for blood and the desire to rend limb from limb, however it's his supreme control as a super-being that allows him to suppress it. Likewise, we've also seen the discrete offing of thirst afflicted characters.

 

His blood rage goes all the way back to Index Astartes. 

[Roomsky]

48 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

But my problem with that is that it isn’t a mask.

 

Plus, the phrase “what they were he is, what he was they are” implies he went backwards while they went forward.

 

I guess that’s my issue with the story. It implies that controlling your hunger is merely making a mask, but it isn’t the case. Sanguinius isn’t a monster that hides his bad side, neither are the legionaries. 
 

They are (him and his sons) “cursed” people who largely overcame and learned to control their curse. That isn’t making a mask, that’s growing as person. Do they still have concupiscence? Yes, and often they fall. But it isn’t the concupiscence that defines them, it is their *desire to not give in to it* that does. 
 

Instead it’s just a “oh, no they’re totally monsters that are just faking it so they can look like the heroes we need :) “

 

Like don’t get me wrong, I like the story, but the perspective is from a guy that I would hate in real life. He’s got a terrible philosophy and a stupid outlook on life, and while it was an enjoyable book I just don’t like the main character, the theme, the underlying philosophy, or any of that. 
 

 

 

I don't know if I'd agree that astartes are parallel to people in that way, though, and I don't know if Wraight is trying to portray the demons of an astartes and those of a human as something equivocable. I personally read the book as an analogy for the Imperium, rather than an analogy for humans.

 

Sanguinius and his sons are the weapons of an evil empire. The mask is that they're personable, reasonable, that there are atrocities they won't commit. But it is still a mask.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Roomsky

[Lord_Caerolion]

1 hour ago, Arkangilos said:

But my problem with that is that it isn’t a mask.

 

Plus, the phrase “what they were he is, what he was they are” implies he went backwards while they went forward.

 

I guess that’s my issue with the story. It implies that controlling your hunger is merely making a mask, but it isn’t the case. Sanguinius isn’t a monster that hides his bad side, neither are the legionaries. 
 

They are (him and his sons) “cursed” people who largely overcame and learned to control their curse. That isn’t making a mask, that’s growing as person. Do they still have concupiscence? Yes, and often they fall. But it isn’t the concupiscence that defines them, it is their *desire to not give in to it* that does. 
 

Instead it’s just a “oh, no they’re totally monsters that are just faking it so they can look like the heroes we need :) “

 

Like don’t get me wrong, I like the story, but the perspective is from a guy that I would hate in real life. He’s got a terrible philosophy and a stupid outlook on life, and while it was an enjoyable book I just don’t like the main character, the theme, the underlying philosophy, or any of that. 
 

 

They’re not just people with urges, though. Look at what the Curse does when they give in to it, it’s beyond any normal struggle. They are absolutely monsters at their core. Monsters that resist their nature, and channel it to constructive means, but monsters nonetheless. 
 

As for the “what they were, he is; what he was they are”, this is how I see it:

 

”What they were, he is”: The Revenant Legion were Astartes implanted with geneseed that gave them superhuman abilities, elevating them far beyond the humans around them, but also cursed them with horrific thirsts for blood. They had no guidance in this, no teacher instructing them in how to focus themselves, just sent into the most horrific warzones, then shunned for being what they are. 
Sanguinius too has those same instincts, and had no-one to instruct him on what he was, or what these drives were. He had to become better by himself. 

 

“What he was, they are”: What he WAS was a shining god to the people of Baal, a source of constant inspiration to a population that were unaware of his true nature and flaws. This is what the Legion is, a shining exemplar to the wider Imperium, held up as the greatest of heroes, despite the murky underbelly. 
 

The book isn’t saying that they’re just faking it, it’s saying that they are both light and dark, despite forces within the Imperium wanting to insist that they are ONLY light. A controlled curse IS still a curse, even if it’s not controlling them.

Each Blood Angel has a constant voice in the back of their head telling them to give in, to let loose and slake their Thirst. They largely manage to ignore this, and so outwardly seem what the propaganda presents, but this is not the total truth. 

[Arkangilos]

8 hours ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

They’re not just people with urges, though.

I mean they really are. Their gene seed gives them a hunger, and hunger is an urge. 
 

What I disagree with fundamentally is that they are monsters. They aren’t. Concupiscence doesn’t make one a monster. What makes one a monster is how they deal with the concupiscence. Do they resist and fight it? Or do they willfully give in?

 

Edit to Add

 

Just to be clear, my problem isn’t with the story, it is with the character’s conclusion. :p

 

And not in a “he’s a badly written character” way, but in the “We would spend long hours debating over a cigar and whiskey” way.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Arkangilos

[Xenith]

18 hours ago, cheywood said:

One of the secondary themes of the book, at least to my mind, is that the Imperium was decaying even as it was being built. The prologue opens with a reflection on the subject and the presence of lower deck inhabitants reinforces that. 

 

The shining and pristine upper decks with a darker and horrificly decaying underbelly would also be a metaphor for the legion as a whole.

 

10 hours ago, Arkangilos said:

His blood rage goes all the way back to Index Astartes. 

Ah yea, I forgot the shining halo/aura of rage when the mutants attacked, as I recall? 

 

I managed to find it, so for posterity:

 

Quote

 

"They, the cannibal-mutants, numbered in their hundreds, far more than we. Blade sprouted from mouth, curdled eye stared, buckled hand clutched rusted sword. We knew death in that moment. Then the Angel started his work.

 

He, the Pure One, wanted no harm to befall us. He raged, at first a white, blazing light, then, as death walked beside him, a terrible red thing. His eyes and crown seemed to burn, intense, a corona of bright violence, a sandstorm of destruction. We were caught in the deadly beauty of his dance. And then there were no mutants, only silence, and he stood before us, dripping, still as the cairn."

 

 

So the Baalites would have definitely seen this side of him, they know, and still love him. 

What's also interesting is this line:

 

Quote

 

In battle, his wrath was total and unstoppable.

 

 

That seems to be the seed for the "Everything at all, or nothing at all" theme. 

[Osteoclast]

Finished reading it the other week and while, from a technical standpoint it was good (aside from the epilogue

doing the usual "how quickly can we make this indistinguishable from the 41st millennia?" sprint that all the 30K stuff seems to do

), something just perpetually feels off about it and I'm not sure what it is. It did definitely feel more like a Blood Angels book with some meta looking over at the Primarchs than it did a book about Sanguinius. I also kinda feel like any contrasting with the Revenant Legion should also gone a bit into looking why the Revenant Legion turned out that way since we don't see that happening with BA successors who don't focus on arts and crafts as their means of distraction (particularly when they don't even know that they are BA successors, like the Carmine Blades/Swords of Haldroth).

[Lord_Caerolion]

It’s because of two main reasons that we don’t see a resurgence of Revenant Legion traits in later Successors. 
 

Firstly, the Astartes now much more heavily rely on hypnoindoctrination in the creation process, something that was almost entirely missing from 30k. 
Secondly, the Revenant Legion was also inducted from mutant tribes barely any different from the Legion, and didn’t exactly have a strong cultural training program. 
 

With Chapters like the Swords of Haldroth, sure, they don’t have any “prior warning” of their geneseed, but they also aren’t recruiting from barely-cohesive mutant tribes. Remember that the culture from which the inductees come has just as much influence on the resulting Chapter, it doesn’t get overwritten by “must think exactly like the Primarch” magic. 

[Arkangilos]

I mean some of the legions essentially do become the revenant legion.

 

We also cannot forget this is one of the reasons Sanguinius founded the Sanguinary Priests in the lore, as well. To guide his sons after he died