The End and the Death Part I, II, III, ...

[cheywood]

1 hour ago, Arguleon Veq said:

I seem to recall Dan was battling health issues, I don’t remember the time period, but I suspect it had a role/impact on how this played out

Abnett did unexpectedly develop epilepsy (or more accurately manifested symptoms for the first time), but that was way back. It affected the writing and publication order of Prospero Burns, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how the Heresy at large has played out, unless there’s information I’m missing. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by cheywood

[Nagashsnee]

1 hour ago, EnsignJoker said:

The descriptions are what is absolutely a slog. We get it Dan. Terra is a hellscape. The Palace is busted. The emperor is determined. Malcador loves the Emperor. Get on with it! Mortis level drudgery here. 

The fact that you did not mention the clocks having stopped and that you now know this to be the end AND the death tells me you need a good solid 300 extra pages to let these facts sink in . 

[Sothalor]

4 hours ago, cheywood said:

Abnett did unexpectedly develop epilepsy (or more accurately manifested symptoms for the first time), but that was way back. It affected the writing and publication order of Prospero Burns, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how the Heresy at large has played out, unless there’s information I’m missing. 

 

I recall seeing an interview with him some years after the fact. Abnett shared that dealing with the epilepsy did entail many changes to his work schedule and how that's meant he can no longer work the same pace he used to. Unsurprising, for managing a chronic condition.

[DukeLeto69]

This thread seems to be devolving into a “let’s just bash Abnett” excuse. The goalposts keep changing to fit that narrative.

 

Few people, even avid fans, would disagree (I think) that Abnett is an ideas guy or that he is a strong starter but sometimes a weak finisher. It’s a universal trope that all his novel endings are bad or abrupt, but some certainly are. 

 

His strengths are playing in his own sandpit (GG, Eisenhorn et al), and setting the scene. He did that very well with Horus Rising giving a different voice to 30k v 40k (though IMHO he didn’t go far enough and authors who followed on rapidly reverted back to a 40k style). He was also on hand to set up TBA and again try to make it feel a bit different to 40k. The mess that followed was not his fault.

 

Blaming Abnett for not revisiting his plot/character creations in the HH when he did not write for the HH for seven years just seems churlish, a little entitled, and odd. To then point out that he did write for BL (after a 4 year or so gap) and therefore should have written for HH just seems to ignore the realities of how BL work or how far ahead they schedule and commission freelance writers. It also ignores that we knew Abnett had at least one more confirmed HH novel planned called Dreadwing that was to follow on from TUE and, had the schedule been maintained, probably would have come out about 6-7 books after TUE. It isn’t really much of a leap to accept that his perpetuals arc etc would have been continued in that book. However, for various reasons he stopped working for BL for several years.

 

And that is the next key point. Abnett is not a BL employee. He is freelance. He takes the gigs he is offered (and wants) to feed his family. And yet there is an undertone in some of these posts that he should only prioritise working for BL and the fans deserve him to sacrifice his other income streams. Why? Why should he?

 

So he starts writing again for BL (and he and other big name authors have been guarded but a little open about how unpleasant it was working with BL for a while, hence stopping) and they commission more Gaunt’s Ghosts and Inquisitor stories. I would hazard a guess that after the HH series, the GG series is probably one of BL’s biggest sellers so BL would have been keen to hook Abnett back in and the HH commission backlog/schedule was full and assigned so no room (or hooks) for an Abnett entry.

 

I believe the SoT as a mini series/big event was not only a marketing ploy to get us fans to part with cash and create a buzz, but to also entice back the big hitters of Abnett and ADB (and sales wise a bit of McNeil and Swallow - who both opted for novellas due to their schedules).

 

Does all that excuse Abnett for writing three volumes of tEatD? Probably/likely not, though personally I will reserve judgement until we have all three. Should Abnett have had what appears to be total free reign? No certainly not in my opinion. He is a creative, an artist, and mercurial by nature. But he is a freelancer working for a client. He needed strong authoritative editorial control and, I suspect, a strong IP guardian on his shoulder like Alan Merritt to reign him in. But both BL and Abnett also probably saw the financial benefits of stretching to three  volumes and a captive audience.

 

I get that some folks do not like what Abnett has done/is doing. That is of course subjective. But some of the arguments being put forward feel more than a little desperate in their attempt to just attack him for anything and everything. To me it just comes across as entitled and shows a rather negative side of the fandom.

[Ubiquitous1984]

1 hour ago, DukeLeto69 said:

This thread seems to be devolving into a “let’s just bash Abnett” excuse. The goalposts keep changing to fit that narrative.

 

...

 

I get that some folks do not like what Abnett has done/is doing. That is of course subjective. But some of the arguments being put forward feel more than a little desperate in their attempt to just attack him for anything and everything. To me it just comes across as entitled and shows a rather negative side of the fandom.

The whole negativity in this thread seems a bit overboard IMO, and is making it hard to follow.  I understand that the book isn't going to be universally popular, but is it really as catastrophic as is made out on here?  Goodreads rates it 4.27 so far (volume I at 4.47).  So it's being received well by fans (by comparison Mortis is only on 3.64 which I feel is very harsh!)

[Nagashsnee]

1 hour ago, Ubiquitous1984 said:

The whole negativity in this thread seems a bit overboard IMO, and is making it hard to follow.  I understand that the book isn't going to be universally popular, but is it really as catastrophic as is made out on here?  Goodreads rates it 4.27 so far (volume I at 4.47).  So it's being received well by fans (by comparison Mortis is only on 3.64 which I feel is very harsh!)

 

I think its a credit to the book. Most bad BL books dont get much negativity because people dont expect much better. Oh did the latest Nick Kyme (easy shot sue me) Salamander book prove to be made of wood and the overuse of the words 'fire and anvil'?  There is nothing there to talk about. 

 

This book is generating lots of discussion because it has very good positive base. Its well written in the classic Abnett standard people have come to know and expect.  I find people get truly negative/disappointed when something that has all the basis of being great fails to meet its (perceived) potential. 

 

Neither is this I feel a personal attack at the author, this is not his first Siege book, Saturnine exists and is for many a contender for best siege book and gets heaps and heaps of praise.  And as I have said before there is just as much heat being directed at the editorial team and BL itself.  But they are not the 'face' of a book, the author is. And for me its just easier to write 'Abnett' then 'the author'. 

 

Then you have the emotional aspect, this book will eventual get to covering the most pivotal scene in the mythos. Detailing if not THE most famous scene one of them in the entirety of warhammer lore plus several near contenders. Stuff that many people have grown up with and have seen in artworks and other sources for DECADES. 

 

People are passionate about this book because it covered material readers are passionate about, and while i wish this thread had been 1000 pages of 'it completely blew my expectations away' its not because for me at least it hasn't, but exploring what it did and how it did it is still fun, as is trading view with others on here.  Seeing how we got here and pondering if lessons could have been learned by previous works etc is just part of that. 

 

I had near nothing but praise for Saturnine, Warhawk and Echoes, 3 different books by 3 different authors.  But i don't here, and I wont pretend otherwise and neither should anyone else. 

 

 

[63-19]

No, the book isn't actually that bad. It's just that most of the people on here are insufferable and try to make the discussion as negative as possible.

[cheywood]

The Heresy does tend to bring out the argumentative side of B&C. 40k novel discussions usually seem much less emotionally driven. I chalk it up to the Heresy having been in many of our lives since we were young, easy to be passionate when you’ve anticipated something for almost two decades. That said, it does make discussion hard to follow when we’re beating the same drum over and over with the last couple books. I blame Abnett, he’s induced us to repetitive arguments in a perverse mimicry of The End and The Death. 

[madlibrarian]

I found volume 1 to be an intriguing and interesting read, plenty of action, not an overuse of synonyms to describe how time has stopped, the worlds are mixing together etc.

 

volume 2, the action is great, the twist is interesting, and the vocabulary is superb. That being said, I found it slightly monotonous in terms of how every time there’s a new chapter it’s another paragraph or two about how the warp is changing the landscape and how the material and immaterial worlds are one and the same etc etc. 

 

I’d give it a 7/10

[Ubiquitous1984]

30 minutes ago, 63-19 said:

No, the book isn't actually that bad. It's just that most of the people on here are insufferable and try to make the discussion as negative as possible.

Hey man, on the contrary: I find most people on here to be pleasant, interesting and respectful.  I wouldn't mind having a beer and a chat IRL with pretty much anyone here.

 

But, I still stand by my opinion that people here are being too negative now on this particular book.  But it's just my opinion!

[Phoebus]

16 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

 

You are doing so, right there.

I'm talking about the Black Library and Games Workshop's editing and management team, Scribe, as I consistently have throughout this topic. When I made that reply, my impression had been that you were referencing third parties beyond them.

[Phoebus]

16 hours ago, DarkChaplain said:

Kyme even finished two arcs, with how The Iron Tenth got scrapped and he wrapped up the Meduson plotline - which Abnett kinda started too! - in Old Earth. Actually, that book wrapped up three arcs, another one of Abnett's is in there - the Cabal/Eldrad.

 

The argument isn't that Kyme didn't complete any arcs. It's that Abnett was not alone in introducing elements that were left unfinished.

 

Quote

Abnett stepped away from writing for BL for years after The Unremembered Empire. He overpromised on various projects he wouldn't deliver (Interceptor City is still not here, Pariah to Penitent was what, 8 or so years, the last Gaunt's Ghosts arc (til now) was on ice for ages and so forth, and his follow-up to Brothers of the Snake got handed first to his wife and then to Matthew Farrer, iirc, who finally delivered it as a two-parter in recent history), and his story beats had to be picked up by others (like Kyme, who as an editor at BL probably had a decent enough idea on what the ideas for these were or where they were headed) or were fridged.

 

That, frankly, is a gross oversimplification of what happened, and omits the reasons for said hiatus.

 

Quote

Surely, there would've been an opportunity to write an Oll short story for one of the Advent calendar series in there? Or anything at all? Instead of letting him hop through time and space off-screen until he was needed again?

 

Sure, assuming there had been no conflicts between him and the studio (or vice versa), or health issues, or simply a competing schedule--on whose priorities Black Library would most certainly have had a say.

 

Quote

Abnett himself didn't even touch Oll in Saturnine, the book before Mortis, and left it to John French to reintroduce Oll and his crew. 

 

That, too, is an assumption. I genuinely struggle to picture someone that comes off as generally sound, and who appears to have good relations with the other authors on that creative team, essentially saying "I don't feel like doing this; you do it for me, John." What's more likely? That, or Abnett pitching an idea to editors, managers, and French alike about ...

 

Quote

... adding "Olly Piers" ...

 

... and them moving in concert together?

 

Quote

... as the Guardsman who stood up to Horus but actually it's just a World Eater and propaganda makes it bigger than it is but actually he ends up standing up against Angron just that this part wasn't recorded in the end.... WHEN HE ALREADY HAD AN OLLANIUS THE PIOUS OF HIS OWN PRIOR MAKING. 

 

But now we're getting back into subjective opinion, which you're of course completely entitled to. At the end of the day, we've known for well over a decade that The Horus Heresy was going to change things from the original material. That's a distinct matter from Abnett introducing things late on in the absence of an actual cohesive narrative, though. It's one thing to not like Olly Piers in general; it's another thing altogether to lament his inclusion in favor of Ollanius the Pious when the people responsible for said actual cohesive narrative did the square root of nothing to set that character up across 54 (?) numbered novels.

[EverythingIsGreat]

The 8th edition of WH40K, which introduced the Dark Imperium (and Roboute Guilliman resurrected) was released in 2017. In the Gathering Storm lore books that were part of it, there are references to the HH and the Imperium Secundus. There are also instances where the resurrected Guilliman has been extremely reticent in bringing this up, and seems he suppressed any information about it. For obvious reasons. Even without the IS incident, according to 8th ed. lore (which includes the related BL novels) his early hold on the situation was tenuous, and Imperial factions including High Lords were actively opposing him. The lore points out that knowledge of the Unremembered Empire would make his job that much harder.

 

I posted before, at least one BL novel involves a copy of Guilliman's hand-written HH-era "blueprint" for Imperium Secundus, where a traitor or daemon uses it to sway Imperial officials against GUilliman. I have been looking for the title, as I don't remember it off-hand, so you have to take this as is.

 

Major game editions and their auxiliary products have a pretty involved development cycle. Choices have to be made about setting, related miniatures to design, likely scenarios to use them in etc. I would not be at all surprised if 8th edition planning started, say at least five-six years prior. One of the major items, bringing back a Primarch, must have had extensive review. It has to be believable. Logically, considering the available options, Guilliman is the best fit, both lore and game wise. And it has to be shown why, but also it has to give the in-universe opposition real teeth. One major toothache would be what Guilliman did way back when, the Imperium Secundus etc.

 

The Unremembered Empire novel was published in 2013, obviously work on it started earlier. It may have been Abnett let loose unchecked. Or he may have been commissioned (as a BL stalwart author) to write the story that could be used later to both make the evolved setting more exciting and give additional development options, say a new civil war between pro-Guilliman factions and factions convinced that Guilliman had betrayed the Imperium back then and he's betraying it again. The possibilities of further lore development open up even further with a twist like Imperium Secundus.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Phoebus said:

That's a distinct matter from Abnett introducing things late on in the absence of an actual cohesive narrative, though. It's one thing to not like Olly Piers in general; it's another thing altogether to lament his inclusion in favor of Ollanius the Pious when the people responsible for said actual cohesive narrative did the square root of nothing to set that character up across 54 (?) numbered novels.

 

As we have seemingly misunderstood eachother before, are you not pointing out exactly what one of the criticisms of this whole thing are?

 

That the people responsible (Abnett) did the square root of nothing to establish a character he has since made pivotal to the single largest event in the entire IP?

[DukeLeto69]

So I did some digging around re Perpetuals and looked at several old but well known forums (not B&C) from back in the day. It seems that while some people have always disliked them, the general consensus seems to be that people were intrigued and interested. The turning point seems to have been Vulkan Lives and Kyme making Vulkan a Perpetual.

[Scribe]

12 minutes ago, DukeLeto69 said:

So I did some digging around re Perpetuals and looked at several old but well known forums (not B&C) from back in the day. It seems that while some people have always disliked them, the general consensus seems to be that people were intrigued and interested. The turning point seems to have been Vulkan Lives and Kyme making Vulkan a Perpetual.

 

Thats probably when most saw it jumped the shark. I think for me it may have been Know no Fear.

[DukeLeto69]

8 hours ago, Ubiquitous1984 said:

The whole negativity in this thread seems a bit overboard IMO, and is making it hard to follow.  I understand that the book isn't going to be universally popular, but is it really as catastrophic as is made out on here?  Goodreads rates it 4.27 so far (volume I at 4.47).  So it's being received well by fans (by comparison Mortis is only on 3.64 which I feel is very harsh!)

I stopped reading SoT after Mortis. It was such a slog. I real endurance test. And I generally really like John French. But Mortis...! In fact apart from Saturnine, they have all been a bit of a slog. That’s not to say none of them had good parts, they all did. But generally not a pleasure to read. Apart from Saturnine.

 

I needed some distance after Mortis (in fact I needed some distance from BL in general). I planned to read Warhawk-EoE-tEatD back-to-back but with there being three massive volumes to tEatD it is now such a daunting prospect, it may kill my love of BL fiction for some years (apart from Pandaemonium and any Fehervari).

 

My earlier long post was really triggered by what I see as some folks on here “playing the man not the ball” and ignoring so much wider context in making their argument.

[DukeLeto69]

1 minute ago, Scribe said:

 

Thats probably when most saw it jumped the shark. I think for me it may have been Know no Fear.

Brother I won’t hear a bad word against KNF. For me it is probably the best HH novel and one of the best BL novels ever.

[Scribe]

Just now, DukeLeto69 said:

Brother I won’t hear a bad word against KNF. For me it is probably the best HH novel and one of the best BL novels ever.

 

I actually think its Abnetts best in the series, and do enjoy it, but unless I'm misremembering (and I'm getting old) thats when Oll was added, and thats the tipping point for me.

[DukeLeto69]

1 minute ago, Scribe said:

 

I actually think its Abnetts best in the series, and do enjoy it, but unless I'm misremembering (and I'm getting old) thats when Oll was added, and thats the tipping point for me.

I think you are correct about Oll. John G was in Legion. Perpetuals also popped up in other author’s work such as Vengeful Spirit by McNeill.  

 

For me, at the time, I just saw them as a weird little subplot with hat tipping to Sensei. They didn’t distract from the awesomeness that is KNF which was a wholly original and clever approach to writing a HH book.

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, DukeLeto69 said:

I think you are correct about Oll. John G was in Legion. Perpetuals also popped up in other author’s work such as Vengeful Spirit by McNeill.  

 

For me, at the time, I just saw them as a weird little subplot with hat tipping to Sensei. They didn’t distract from the awesomeness that is KNF which was a wholly original and clever approach to writing a HH book.

 

Yep, KNF is Abnett at his peak to me, and I agree early on the Perpetuals were a subplot and likely the replacement for Sensei for whatever reason. The Oll inclusion hit me as the first sniff of the change to the story, and...well it doesnt look like I was wrong at this point.

 

Everything else in KNF was great and reflects the best of what Abnett could bring to the series.

 

There is no chance I re-read it all, but I bet its his best contribution in the end, even considering Saturnine.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, EnsignJoker said:

You can’t objectively read this (book 2) and say every word is needed to strengthen and reinforce the narrative. That’s where an editor was needed to tell Dan to tighten it up. The editor was either incompetent or corporate wanted this bloated into 3 books for sales. Both of those reasons are garbage for us as fans and consumers. 

 

Having just finished it, I'll go further and say (with little time to think on it) that this book absolutely does diminish the first one.

 

Volume 1 really is unjustified, and frankly most of Volume 2 is as well.

 

I'll put a much much longer, some may say Abnettian length, review together later today after work as I finished V2 over my lunch, but yeah 'bloat' simply doesnt cover it. Its Abnettian in its length, and it makes V1 redundant to say the least.

[tgcleric]

Finished my listen. So I've read and listened to Vol 1 and 2.

 

Book 1 is better. Book 2 has better highs (the whole last third).

 

Both books are better than 90% of black library. 

 

Every fan is lucky to have Abnett spending his passion and talent pulling these threads together into a compelling story.

 

Mortis felt longer to read once than these two volumes did to read twice. 

 

Most of the problems are Dan adhering too and trying to tie up other authors and the series problems and characters, not the other way around.

 

We'll see how book 3 is. But seems likely this massive 70+ book series will end with Prospero Burns being the best book.

 

The negativity from a lot on this forum all but guarantees no new fan would ever want to discuss stuff here. It's not just cause it's negative, its the type negativity.

Edited November 21, 2023 by tgcleric

[SkimaskMohawk]

33 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

Both books are better than 90% of black library. 

 

Not even close lol.

 

Theyre better written than many other books, but they're worse actual books. Worse authors have made better books simply by making an engaging story that meshes in with continuity and is well paced. 

 

54 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

Every fan is lucky to have Abnett spending his passion and talent pulling these threads together into a compelling story.

 

Ya we're not graced with his presence and generosity. Its what he's been employed to do, and he's literally making up nonsense in the last book of the series, that he never bothered to introduce in Saturnine (and no one else did at all). Introducing a completely new plot direction in the last act isb bad writing ; it's literally the whole deus ex machina trope of stuff getting introduced out of nowhere. The main criticism of Harry Potter is that the horcruxes got introduced in book 6 and were obviously not planned. Abnett doesn't get a pass because his prose is great and his human characters feel like people; he still has to weave a story properly and play in a shared setting. 

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

Mortis felt longer to read once than these two volumes did to read twice

 

Another lol. People didn't like mortis because very few people like Titanicus and it was a long ass book about titans. But it went faster for me than either volume; the only saving grace for eatd was that i only had to focus for like a paragraph at a time before the plot shifted to the next thing and i could put it down.

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

Most of the problems are Dan adhering too and trying to tie up other authors and the series problems and characters, not the other way around.

 

Like the dark king? Loken? Keeler? Ol et al? Fo? Dorn (according to you, he's abnetts). Not to mention all the nonsense minor marine characters like the Custodes, honfler, and whoever else just got introduced in volume 1. 

 

This also misses the obvious that we didn't need all these marine characters to be tied up. Their stories were done in the siege proper; with the exception of the people on the vengeful spirit, we don't need to know what happens with amit or zephon, with Ilya, with maximus thane and rann. They had their moments, and they were wrapped up satisfactorily.

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

The negativity from a lot on this forum all but guarantees no new fan would ever want to discuss stuff here. It's not just cause it's negative, its the type negativity.

 

And yet, we discuss new stuff in a positive light all the time. I had issues with saturnine and it was far from my favorite in the siege; i gave it like an 8.5 because it was still a good book for all of that. I talked about what I liked with vol. 2 as well as what I didn't like. Same with mortis, echoes, Warhawk, slaves to darkness and all the rest of the siege. Blind fandboying for an author and not holding him to any accountability is what polarizes negativity. 

 

1 hour ago, tgcleric said:

We'll see how book 3 is. But seems likely this massive 70+ book series will end with Prospero Burns being the best book.

 

Like this. How can it be the best book when it didn't cooperate with its own series and had the team do damage control for years afterwards? We can't even interact with these statements in good faith because they're so wild.

 

Like the moonreaper of abnett

[tgcleric]

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Theyre better written than many other books, but they're worse actual books. Worse authors have made better books simply by making an engaging story that meshes in with continuity and is well paced. 

 

Well just agree to disagree. I like the two books more than 90% of the BL books I've read. I've read less than many here but probably close to 150 at this point. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Ya we're not graced with his presence and generosity. 

 

It's always lucky when talented people work on projects you like. And he doesn't phone it in. That's all. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Another lol. People didn't like mortis because very few people like Titanicus and it was a long ass book about titans. But it went faster for me than either volume; the only saving grace for eatd was that i only had to focus for like a paragraph at a time before the plot shifted to the next thing and i could put it down.

 

Like a lot of what is said here this is a nonsense assumption about the readers (or the author). I like the titans a lot. The titan stuff in Helsreach is some of my favorite stuff I've read. Heck, I even liked a lot of the lore ideas in Titandeath. I didn't like Mortis cause it's incompetent plotted, the characters are unremarkable and poorly portrayed. There is little to no drama and French at his most concise is still twice as wordy as abnett at his most verbose. It's a painful slog. Nothing to do with titans. I think that's the difference is so much discussion here seems to be about how much someone likes a certain chapter or how it much it a story aligns to some lore written in a rule book. I don't care if the book was about Titans or mechanicus or whatever. I'm just interested in good stories, good prose and good characters. 

 

Also, a casual scanning of the good reads reviews seems to suggest most people also just thought it was a slog. Nothing to do with some perceived hate of titans. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Like the dark king? Loken? Keeler? Ol et al? Fo? Dorn (according to you, he's abnetts). Not to mention all the nonsense minor marine characters like the Custodes, honfler, and whoever else just got introduced in volume 1. 

 

He is continuing his story, while writing a new novel and trying to tie up a lot of other stories. Yeah. What he's doing is hard. 

 

I mostly like the approach hes taking. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

This also misses the obvious that we didn't need all these marine characters to be tied up. Their stories were done in the siege proper; with the exception of the people on the vengeful spirit, we don't need to know what happens with amit or zephon, with Ilya, with maximus thane and rann. They had their moments, and they were wrapped up satisfactorily.

 

I agree he didn't need to tie up these characters but not because they were done proper before. They weren't. Most of the fragments have more character in them then previous sections about the characters I've read. 

 

I dont think he needed to cause i don't think they are that important. But clearly he's trying to give everyone their fair share in the final story. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

And yet, we discuss new stuff in a positive light all the time. I had issues with saturnine and it was far from my favorite in the siege; i gave it like an 8.5 because it was still a good book for all of that. I talked about what I liked with vol. 2 as well as what I didn't like. Same with mortis, echoes, Warhawk, slaves to darkness and all the rest of the siege. Blind fandboying for an author and not holding him to any accountability is what polarizes negativity. 

 

I didn't say you specifically. I remember going back to the santurine thread to see what this place was like before i got into the books and yeah... not for me. 

 

It's the gleeful desire to scrutinize someone else's summary of a book, prehating, applying motivation to an authors books, completely unfounded statements about how the publishing and editing of the series works in order to prove some point. Some people here remind me of the toxic fan base on star wars forums.

 

Also, Abnett is not one of my favorite authors or anything. I'm not primarily a warhammer reader. I got into it a couple years ago cause I like painting. I read xenos and that got me into other books. I've found wraight, abd and abnett to be the authors I think are genuinely good writers and would be curious to read stuff even if it wasn't attached to an IP I like. 

 

I've read plenty of books that were surprisingly good, with stuff like Wraithbone Phoenix being just a solid book.

 

But yeah, in general, abnetts writing, both technically and dramatically, I have found to be very good. And I concerned about reading and enjoyable book first. Whether it's good "warhammer" is secondary to me. I get that's different than other folks. 

 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Like this. How can it be the best book when it didn't cooperate with its own series and had the team do damage control for years afterwards? We can't even interact with these statements in good faith because they're so wild.

 

Is that a really wild opinion? Prospero Burns js well regarded. Not sure what damage control you are talking about. I've read every HH novel. And yeah, if I had to recommend one book for a Sci fi fan to just pick up and read it would still be either Horus Rising or Prospero Burns. 

 

I think Prospero Burns is just elegantly structured, with beautiful characters. It brought me into an alien culture like the best Sci fi novels do. It felt artistically driven in a way that even a lot of abnett novels don't. 

 

If thats too WILD for you to interact with... aight. 

28 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Like the moonreaper of abnett

 

Don't know what that is. Is it another obscure piece of lore hidden away in a book about toy soldiers next to an advertisement to buy more toy soldiers that abnett didn't perfectly adhere to while trying to write a functional story?

 

(I paint toy soldiers so no shade on liking toy soldiers)

 

Anyways. I'm excited for Book 3.