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

[TheArtilleryman]

Isn’t it more that the Emperor threatened to eradicate war? But chaos wanted it to continue and be even bigger?

[SpecialIssue]

Hm.

 

You suppose that the galaxy-wide Imperium is not significantly worse, on a larger and longer timescale than any regime or period of time that has gone before, thus meaning there is no incentive for the gods to seek to bring it about. That is the crux of your point.

 

On that fundamental level, I believe the opposite. I believe that the Imperium is the worst possible regime imaginable, that both maximises and sustains the emotion seen in humanity and the galaxy, through its quadrillions of minds conditioned to live under and propagate oppression, inequality, religious frenzy and irrational hate.

 

What other period in history has humanity been as powerful, but collectively as unfree and miserable for so long? That is the thematic basis of the Imperium - the industrial production of power and misery.

 

This is seen through the 30+ years of W40k and the very blurb that has introduced readers to the entire ethos and focus of this universe since the beginning.

 

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable."

 

As for the sidenote about the shaman - who knows who planned what from when? It could have all been foreseen when they reincarnated by either, both, or none of the parties. We have no idea so it is useless to speculate. Is 40k a deterministic universe, given the Warp is timeless? The shamans made their decisions, the gods made theirs, and the sum total is W40k, that is all I need to know. And from that sum, I think Chaos came out on top from 30k onwards.

[TheArtilleryman]

I think the Emperor’s vision for the imperium, the united version of it that he intended as the end goal, is not something Chaos would want. What they wanted was the toxic, corrupted version of the imperium that followed the Horus Heresy. Had the emperor survived to enact his actual intentions, there may have been a lot less suffering than there ultimately was.

[Scribe]

There is, or should have been, a difference between the 30K "Galaxy at War" and 40K "Galaxy at War".

 

One of my many issues with some of the inclusions in the meta plot of HH was that it pushed us towards 40K tropes, far too quickly. Millions of Fanatical base line Humans walking towards the Death Guard to per Keeler and I paraphrase "Tear them apart with my fingers."?

 

No. Just no.

 

The Imperial Faith shouldnt have existed in any way back then, because it was understood that the Emperor was not a God.

 

If the Authors had stuck to that, then one could have seen how there is a clear difference between 30K, a time when a different future was possible, and 40K, when it IS an absolute pit of fanatical hatred.

[EverythingIsGreat]

1 hour ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Isn’t it more that the Emperor threatened to eradicate war? But chaos wanted it to continue and be even bigger?

 

If that is the case there's more inconsistencies. Do we really know what the Emperor wants? We know he's opposed to the Chaos gods. In a previous edition of the game (not WH40K, the "game" between the "gods" and the Emperor) he was all the remaining human shamans. Far as I can tell they were collectively charged with keeping Chaos at bay, basically the same function as the Emperor, until he went to the next level, from defense to attack. How can one eradicate war by an even bigger war? That's like saying truth will be revealed as long as you keep spouting bigger and bigger lies. Goodness is the result of increasing atrocity. Etc. etc. This sounds like a Chaos ploy.

 

Chaos per GW has specific form. It is hierarchical, ruled by 4 powers that basically personify Desire, Mutability, Corruption and Conflict. The assumption is that they act according to their nature. Like everything else they want to continue. Like most everything else they want to grow. And to do whatever the hell they want. War (involving any species) may be a nice concentrated protein dosage, but is it an existential need? They have other ways

[EverythingIsGreat]

1 hour ago, SpecialIssue said:

Hm.

 

You suppose that the galaxy-wide Imperium is not significantly worse, on a larger and longer timescale than any regime or period of time that has gone before, thus meaning there is no incentive for the gods to seek to bring it about. That is the crux of your point.

 

On that fundamental level, I believe the opposite. I believe that the Imperium is the worst possible regime imaginable, that both maximises and sustains the emotion seen in humanity and the galaxy, through its quadrillions of minds conditioned to live under and propagate oppression, inequality, religious frenzy and irrational hate.

 

What other period in history has humanity been as powerful, but collectively as unfree and miserable for so long? That is the thematic basis of the Imperium - the industrial production of power and misery.

 

This is seen through the 30+ years of W40k and the very blurb that has introduced readers to the entire ethos and focus of this universe since the beginning.

 

"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable."

 

As for the sidenote about the shaman - who knows who planned what from when? It could have all been foreseen when they reincarnated by either, both, or none of the parties. We have no idea so it is useless to speculate. Is 40k a deterministic universe, given the Warp is timeless? The shamans made their decisions, the gods made theirs, and the sum total is W40k, that is all I need to know. And from that sum, I think Chaos came out on top from 30k onwards.

 

I thought we could discuss this without GW marketing slogans. The issue here is whether authors can tell an interesting story about the fictional universe. The fictional "history" of the universe has gaps, which is fine. It also has inconsistencies, which they can be brushed over, no problem. The problem starts when "canonical" stories either add more inconsistencies or complicate them in an attempt to resolve them or "move" the setting.

 

In-universe, I suspect species overrun by Necrons, or Orcs, or Eldar or any other sentient race would have a completely different idea of what is the cruelest and more bloody regime. The thousands (?) of sentient races in the galaxy, apparently in almost constant conflict of warring empires, despot campaigns, raider planetary massacres etc (and not forgetting, Chaos plots and incursions), going at it for millions of years, would in a consistent telling, lough at the notion that humanity is somehow different. But the telling is NOT consistent. Because GW makes it so. Well, fine. But the required suspension of disbelief can still be made fun of. 

 

[Moonreaper666]

Horus or the Emperor becoming the 5th Chaos God is Plan A

 

Abaddon becoming the 5th Chaos God is Plan B

[Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Moonreaper666 said:

Horus or the Emperor becoming the 5th Chaos God is Plan A

 

Abaddon becoming the 5th Chaos God is Plan B

 

Nope, otherwise Abaddon would have been the Dark King, and he isnt. He's the Despoiler.

 

40K at this stage, is functional by design, as far as Chaos is concerned.

[63-19]

There is the argument that if the gods feed off of the emotions of conflict then why would the emperor create an even bigger conflict to stop it? If this is true then how are the gods weakening during the crusade? I've always rationalized this, which typing this out made me realize this just be my head canon, that the gods gain more energy through people knowing what they are and metaphorically doing things in their name. Sure, the crusade was generating more fuel for the gods emotionally but the main purpose was to eradicate religion and all mentions of chaos from the galaxy. And like someone else said, eventually all conflict would disappear as there was nothing left to fight, (ideally if the imperium doesn't turn on itself without chaos). So they were slowly losing power because people stopped believing in them, but were strong enough to still plan out a counter attack against the emperor and reignite belief in themselves across the galaxy. It doesn't really make sense that if the gods main goal is to breed conflict that they would want to kill the emperor since he's generating tons of conflict. Why wouldn't the gods just finish the emperor off during his duel in the warp with Horus if they wanted to kill him? I'll ask you another question: why did slaanesh destroy the eldar when they are its primary source of power? It seems like Abnett's interpretation kind of fixes this contradiction as it seems like the gods are always trying to create more gods to perpetuate conflict (as they all do) through the death of alien races, as contradictory as that is. They win either way because of the way they engineered the situation: Horus kills the emperor and he ascends, or the emperor becomes a god. Demons don't call Horus the sacrificed king for nothing. (I know that was written way before the siege was ever planned out, but it fits so nicely now). It seems like the emperor has become a god in a way, belatedly through the star child in modern 40k, so it seems like chaos won out in the end. The emperor's xenophobic imperial truth are stolen from him by religious fanatics due to probably having an existential crisis of having their one guiding star fall silent in order to cope. More gods perpetuating conflict means more opportunity for them to perpetuate themselves forever. 

Edited February 5 by 63-19

[DukeLeto69]

13 hours ago, 63-19 said:

There is the argument that if the gods feed off of the emotions of conflict then why would the emperor create an even bigger conflict to stop it? If this is true then how are the gods weakening during the crusade? I've always rationalized this, which typing this out made me realize this just be my head canon, that the gods gain more energy through people knowing what they are and metaphorically doing things in their name. Sure, the crusade was generating more fuel for the gods emotionally but the main purpose was to eradicate religion and all mentions of chaos from the galaxy. And like someone else said, eventually all conflict would disappear as there was nothing left to fight, (ideally if the imperium doesn't turn on itself without chaos). So they were slowly losing power because people stopped believing in them, but were strong enough to still plan out a counter attack against the emperor and reignite belief in themselves across the galaxy. It doesn't really make sense that if the gods main goal is to breed conflict that they would want to kill the emperor since he's generating tons of conflict. Why wouldn't the gods just finish the emperor off during his duel in the warp with Horus if they wanted to kill him? I'll ask you another question: why did slaanesh destroy the eldar when they are its primary source of power? It seems like Abnett's interpretation kind of fixes this contradiction as it seems like the gods are always trying to create more gods to perpetuate conflict (as they all do) through the death of alien races, as contradictory as that is. They win either way because of the way they engineered the situation: Horus kills the emperor and he ascends, or the emperor becomes a god. Demons don't call Horus the sacrificed king for nothing. (I know that was written way before the siege was ever planned out, but it fits so nicely now). It seems like the emperor has become a god in a way, belatedly through the star child in modern 40k, so it seems like chaos won out in the end. The emperor's xenophobic imperial truth are stolen from him by religious fanatics due to probably having an existential crisis of having their one guiding star fall silent in order to cope. More gods perpetuating conflict means more opportunity for them to perpetuate themselves forever. 

The God of Grammar and Punctuation just imploded!

 

Sorry just joking. Good and interesting points.

 

Although Slaanesh did not destroy the Eldar. It was their depravity and destruction that gave birth to Slaanesh (I think)

Edited February 6 by DukeLeto69

[TheArtilleryman]

5 hours ago, DukeLeto69 said:

The God of Grammar and Punctuation just imploded!

 

Sorry just joking. Good and interesting points.

 

Although Slaanesh did not destroy the Eldar. It was their depravity and destruction that gave birth to Slaanesh (I think)

Kind of both. Their raw emotion created Slaanesh, and when Slaanesh woke up it inhaled like a billion Eldar souls in its first breath, proceeded by many more. The associated explosion created the eye of terror at the centre of the Eldar empire which basically tore it apart.

[wecanhaveallthree]

It might be more true to say that Slaanesh engineered its own birth, and hijacked the creation/birth of Ynnead, if Fist of Demetrius and Wild Rider are any indication.

[63-19]

I always assumed when slaanesh was born she went on a rampage killing all of the eldar gods and eating normal eldar souls

[Scribe]

44 minutes ago, 63-19 said:

I always assumed when slaanesh was born she went on a rampage killing all of the eldar gods and eating normal eldar souls

 

As far as these things are esoteric, metaphysical, or soul stuff (aka the Warp) thats how it happened yes.

[Cactus]

I firmly believe that if the metaphysics of Chaos can be reconciled neatly and without inconsistencies there's something wrong with that theory. Chaos done well should be contradictory. That doesn't mean pulling the rug at every narrative opportunity but I can accept, no desire, that when you put it all together it doesn't quite line up.

[TheArtilleryman]

1 hour ago, 63-19 said:

I always assumed when slaanesh was born she went on a rampage killing all of the eldar gods and eating normal eldar souls

Pretty much. That came after the stuff I said. A massive battle between Slaanesh and Khaine in the warp while the laughing god dude hid behind Khaine.

[Roomsky]

The End and the Death 3.0 - You Can (Not) Redo - Dan Abnett - Part 1

 

Finished this on Friday and have been mulling over how best to review it. I've settled on another split post between pros and cons, and I plan to only really cover the contents of this book rather than all 3 parts (for now.) Starting with the negatives this time, because I think overall this book is quite good and I want to end on a positive note.

 

The Not-So-Good:

 

 

 

 

 

General Inconsistencies:

 

Kind of discussed this one already. For a work with a manuscript's length of notes and who knows how many meetings and chats with the other authors, a lot of this doesn't sync up and it gets distracting after a while. And I don't mean the stuff left intentionally vague to keep the setting from feeling tiny:

 

The Fidelitas Lex and Lorgar's faith in Erebus - minor, but it taints an otherwise solid chapter. 

 

Valdor's characterization being completely different - This all seems to be in service to Bequin, but this Valdor only barely resembles the character that's been established so far, mostly by Wraight. Worse, he didn't need to be that different to go where Abnett wants him to; Valdor's established that his primary loyalty is always to the throne, even when he wishes it were otherwise. Without direct commands from the Emperor, he was always going to go to some weird places. He didn't need a spear that sees the future or a complete breakdown of personality type (pre Emperor's death) to accomplish that.

 

Dorn acts like he didn't just spend hundreds of subjective years in a warp desert - seriously, he's surprisingly chill (and trusting of a psyker he's never met before with some rather important information) for everything he's just gone through, and the situation he now finds himself in. Dorn is willing to commit suicide and take his whole legion with him post-Heresy, why's he being so sensible? Even after he finds the mostly-dead Emperor, he's sensible enough to try and keep people calm and invite Loken to join their teleport back. This might have been alleviated if we had a full enthronement scene, but alas.

 

Horus having the necessary agency to cast off the power of the gods makes no sense at this point - I'll expand on it later, but I DO really like flipping the script and having Horus be the one waffling about delivering the killing blow. But Slaves to Darkness means this turn of events makes basically no sense. I guess you could argue that the Chaos Gods kept Horus' core self around so they could rub it in that he's their puppet (which they do in this book,) but they didn't need to give him control enough to cast them off to do so. I was hoping for a while that the verbosity of the Horus chapters was to show him rationalizing actions he was no longer actually in control of, but no, it's a lot of rambling just to hammer home, repeatedly, who Horus is - and I don't think we needed quite this much of it now, it only really serves to reinforce how much he's breaking down.

 Loken is inexplicably loved - Horus reflects in this very book that he's going to wipe out his existing legion and make new sons who totally get him, man. You'd think that means he's beyond attachment to the sons he already has, yet he still refuses to kill Loken. What, is poor Ezekyle chopped liver? Horus doesn't spare a thought for his most loyal attendant but will forever give mercy to his surviving traitor son? I don't get it. That level of admiration works for Sejanus, because everyone talked him up after he was dead, we can fill in the blanks our selves. Abnett has failed throughout to show why Loken is special.

Amit's horror at falling to the Black Rage - He seems very, very shaken by it, which is odd, because he's been reduced to a mindless berserker before, and killed multiple loyalists while doing so, but he seemed far less bothered by it than what we see here.

 

Cyrene can't stop being blind - this one just amused me. So Cyrene lost her sight at Monarchia, which was then restored when she got brought back in Betrayer. Then at some point she lost it again before adopting the Actae persona, but now has it restored because she's in Kat's body. If she's the Moriana Abaddon meets later, are you telling me she got blinded again between appearances? Girl can't catch a break.

 

Abaddon the Unbroken - For the man who gets blamed for losing the battle for Terra, and who is discovered centuries later as a dishevelled hermit distilling warp moonshine, he comes across as remarkably together in his final scene. You'd think a guy bothering to coordinate an optimal exit for the SOH's flagship, and who continues to tolerate Erebus' presence, might make some effort to get the whole fleet moving together instead of ditching everyone for parts unknown.

 

Abnett doesn't bother with your plotlines:

 

This is less about inconsistencies and more about leaving things unresolved that really have no business being left unresolved. And I don't mean stuff like not expanding on Guilliman's arrival or the Scars characters only appearing to man some orbital guns or leaving Narek waiting for a Lorgar that won't arrive, that stuff could easily be expanded on later, or in Narek's case, was a poetic nod to the futility of his journey.

 

No, I mean stuff like a bunch of attention being given to Ashul running off at the end of Lost and the Damned and then never being acknowledged again. Of similar note:

 

• Argonis just hanging around for the finale isn't a poetic nod like Narek got. French put a lot of working into developing him and unless someone writes a prequel to Talon of Horus I doubt we're ever going to see him again.
• Did Legio Mortis evaporate once they breached the walls? Are they just standing around? A lot of attention is given to the corpses of titans, but the victors don't seem to actually be doing anything. Speaking of which, if all coordination fell apart when the gods fled, how did they even manage to get them back aboard the coffin ships?
• Moriana magically knowing how Ollanius died sort of takes the wind out of the whole Ollie Piers thing doesn't it, Abnett? And this was your own plotline.
• Katsuhiro says like one thing and then is never mentioned again. Was he turned into light to power the Hollow mountain? Was the baby? Why was any time devoted to him outside of Lost and the Damned if you weren't going to do anything with him?
• I'm still expecting a third McNeill novel that follows up on Taranis and Lucius. But if it never materializes, Abnett probably should have given them a fragment at least.

 

Basillio Fo:

 

That's it? We spent all this time on an origin for the Terminus Decree, and we never get to see it do anything? And it's basically just buffed life-eater you can spare some people from? And you're just going to have him melt Andromeda's face before getting skewered? (JK he's Xanthus now.) Why did we spend SO MUCH TIME on this??? GAH!
 

 

And that's all the bad I've got to say. I do have bigger criticisms, but they're more fitting for a discussion of TEATD as a whole. Instead, I'd like to talk positives, for there are many…

Edited February 6 by Roomsky

[DarkChaplain]

Ah, right, I should actually watch the EVA movies, now that they're actually all done, huh?

 

Spoiler

At this point I fully expect Abnett to use Pandaemonium to reveal that the Inquisition was undermined by Chaos from the start, both via Cyrene/Actae/Kat/Moriana, as in, the OTHER Moriana, because we needed two of those, and Xanthus-Fo. That Valdor knows Moriana is helping direct Abaddon and Xanthus/Fo (who was executed for heresy, officially) is still around, too.

 

...I just pray we won't be bothered by god-damned Samus again.

 

We also never got a conclusion on Fulgrim. He is never seen again after Saturnine. Just gone, halfway through the Siege, and now we see Perturabo still hanging around in-system, yet Fulgrim goes unacknowledged, despite being the only Traitor Primarch besides Horus who is still logically on Terra by the end..

 

We never got closure on Alpharius/Omegon, either. Last we saw of him, supposedly, was in Slaves to Darkness, before the Siege. We had all that stuff about the infiltrating Alpha Legion being activated and stuff, but... that never actually paid off, either. For all intents, they might or might not be still on Terra, with the City of Dust stuff swapping over. I'm just pretty certain that Bequin-Alpharius is Ingo who got translocated to "Sancour", and that half the stuff that Dan wrote in TEATD as a whole is basically elaborate setup for the big epic twist that is Pandaemonium, sometime in 2037.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, I'm just not at all enticed to interact with the Abnettverse, and if that's what he really turned the capstone of the series into, a launch pad for his own setting?

 

Nope.

[Roomsky]

Valdor's really the only element that's been twisted to suit Abnett's ends, and he's not exactly a primary character. Reality's breaking down so name dropping the City of Dust isn't disruptive, it could have been any other nightmare landscape with no change. The Dark King angle is basically something radical sects of the inquisition have been supportive of for a while now, so it's nothing new either.

 

I think using the whole finale as a launchpad for Pandaemonium is an exaggeration, it's definitely about capping the Heresy first and foremost.

[Scribe]

11 minutes ago, Roomsky said:

Valdor's really the only element that's been twisted to suit Abnett's ends, and he's not exactly a primary character. Reality's breaking down so name dropping the City of Dust isn't disruptive, it could have been any other nightmare landscape with no change. The Dark King angle is basically something radical sects of the inquisition have been supportive of for a while now, so it's nothing new either.

 

I think using the whole finale as a launchpad for Pandaemonium is an exaggeration, it's definitely about capping the Heresy first and foremost.

 

Yeah, all the name drops can absolutely be left as nothing more than that, its what I did because I dont know/care/want to know, about the wider Abnettverse. Just zero interest. I find the assassination of Valdor's character to be egregiously bad, but we have discussed that. :p

[EverythingIsGreat]

3 hours ago, Cactus said:

I firmly believe that if the metaphysics of Chaos can be reconciled neatly and without inconsistencies there's something wrong with that theory. Chaos done well should be contradictory. That doesn't mean pulling the rug at every narrative opportunity but I can accept, no desire, that when you put it all together it doesn't quite line up.

 

That may be so for the in-universe characters. May be, because GW's Chaos (which is not chaos) does have consistency. Otherwise one cannot base armies, campaigns and storylines on it, and characters interacting with it has no meaning, since there can be no "metric" for any interaction with inconsistency.

 

But we, the readers are not in-universe. The expectation is still, and always, for a story that is entertaining, well-told and internally consistent. Even surrealist fiction is expected to be so and can be enjoyed on its terms by those who like it. Being (wink wink) purposefully "inconsistent" is its own consistency. A contrived one, and therefore meaningless at least to me, but others may have a different view.  And again, imo the story can be inconsistent, from the POV of its characters. From the reader's perspective, that should not be the case. Questions arise about the author's skill.

[Roomsky]

21 hours ago, Roomsky said:

The End and the Death 3.0 - You Can (Not) Redo - Dan Abnett - Part 1

...because I think overall this book is quite good and I want to end on a positive note.

 

 

The Good and Great

 

 

 

Abnett Fixed the Pacing

Hallelujah, the microchapters are gone and there aren't vast stretches of padding in this book. It is very close to being all killer and no filler, with only a few of the ongoing battle scenes dragging just slightly past their welcome. Looking at this beside the other 2 volumes on my shelf is frankly comical, especially because they're inversely sized compared to what actually occurs in them. The book is energized front to back and it brought me out of the mild slump I had going into it.

 
Horus vs The Emperor

Somehow, Abnett made this great. The single event the fandom at large often saw as impossible to do justice, Abnett did justice. Yes, it is perhaps a little long. Yes, perhaps at a certain point yet another character standing before a wounded Emperor gets a smidge silly. But damn, the fight landed. I've read Bill King's version, and I've read the Visions of Heresy version(s). Frankly, they all sucked, and didn't even begin to capture the pathos or grandeur of the event. But this, oh man, this I love.

The physical combat, limited in detail, is brutal. The psychic combat is creative and definitely goes a step beyond the usual DBZ beam fight. Transporting each other to different locations, having a thousand battles at once, having an absurdly high-stakes card game, it would be goofy if it weren't so damn wizard. Swapping from Horus' POV to Dusk's to Leetu's to Loken's was also the perfect way to do it, showing the battle from at every level from the blunt to the abstract.

What about the fact that, repetition aside, Abnett had Ollanius and a Custodian stand to defend the wounded Emperor. Or the fact he still had one of the combatants holding back because of sentiment, but with the clever flip to the emotional one being Horus (the original version, while poignant, was never going to work with the Emperor as written in these novels.) What about how we still got the dynamic of a father unable to kill off a son, only now with Horus and Loken (and somehow, also the Emperor)? TEATD 1 and 2 often read like Abnett thought he was being clever. TEATD 3 is Abnett actually being clever.

I love it. I love how much we get to see of Horus as a person, and how he deludes himself into thinking he's a benevolent ruler despite all evidence to the contrary. I love how we still get the moment of the Emperor deleting him while he has a moment of clarity. I love the absolutely pointless cruelty of the Chaos gods. I really love that Keeler's procession was a mass sacrifice that gives Him just enough juice to kill Horus. The core of the book, the setpiece of the Heresy, was damn good. Hard not to be giddy, TBH.


Doing a lot with a little

One of Abnett's great skills is making a character seem layered without actually having those layers explicitly fleshed out. His style of writing soldiers and warriors is very practical and down to earth, so their idiosyncrasies stand out much more. This shouldn't be confused with boring characters, because they usually have the wit to sustain their almost everyman-ish personalities.

We just met Custodian Dusk, yet I was rooting for him come his end. Sycar is only a replacement Falkus Kibre, yet his gang-stabbing of Valdor immediately solidified him in my memory. Typhus is barely more than an abstract menace, yet it's by far his coolest and most intimidating showing (helped by the fact he's still sorely lacking a focus-novel, I admit.) Lorgar, Guilliman, and Perturabo each only appear for a single chapter but, inconsistencies aside, I found them very charming character moments. I wish he'd done one for every absentee primarch, to be quite honest. I'd love Abnett's brief take on Corax. Something about Abnett briefly touching on a background element before rapidly switching to another topic just works. Never have I been so intrigued by some new mook Sigismund is about to kill.

Many of the pacing issues throughout this 3-part-book have been Abnett belabouring a point ad nauseum. But when he's forced to be brief? We get some damn good :cuss:.

 
After the battle

Is this an honest to goodness denouement from Abnett? I'm not saying it couldn't have used more wrap-up, Return of the King this is not, but I fully expected it to end the instant they plopped the Emperor on the throne. No, believe it or not, we get some actual closure! Not much, it keeps things open as was Abnett's mandate, but there's suitable time to wallow in the aftermath instead of simply stopping post-climax. And, if I'm being honest, I like the general lack of satisfying closure, we shouldn't be feeling triumph at the end (and the death.) No reassuring words from the Emperor, no Guilliman raining fire on the traitors for catharsis. Just the creeping darkness of the coming future, like Keeler's tour of the palace.


Loken given purpose, at last

Much like the fate of the Long Companions, this character's end finally gave me some affection for him. Warhammer, ultimately, focusses on fighting and dying. A character's death is half the fun! So finally seeing Loken's, and the lead-up to it, was quite a fun time despite my continual issues with him throughout the series.

He's still not a great character, Horus' love for him is still un-earned, and his personality is still too shaky for my tastes. But Loken being used as a tool by the Emperor against Horus? Brilliant. Loken being stabbed in the back by Erebus, dying instantly with no defiance on his lips, and spawning Samus? Brilliant. For all that I think him and Abaddon not trying to kill each-other was a stretch, their defeated conversation after the battle just felt right, you know?

Basically, it was a cynical kick in the nuts. And it was everything Garro's death should have been.

 
The Threads Converge

No, not all the threads of the Heresy, nor the Siege at large. I'll complain about that even more later. But I found this a very impressive and satisfying end to the other 2 parts of this book. Damning with faint praise, I know, but it actually made me excited to read them all back to back again some day. This is contrasting before I picked the book up, where despite getting some enjoyment of it I wasn't sure if I ever wanted to read part 2 again.

I have a lot of patience for ambition. I give a lot of wiggle room when I'm not bored. Abnett took on too much, unnecessarily so, but I can't help but find it impressive. It felt epic, it felt like a grand culmination of threads (even though it wasn't really,) and it felt like the promise of a Heresy novel series delivered at last.
 

 

 

 

Overall

 

I gave this 5 stars on Goodreads. It's not perfect, but still I loved it front to back. Still it exceeded most of my expectations regarding what the Heresy finale could look like. He didn't it up! And that sounds backhanded, I know, but I say it in the same vein as I'd say a someone in the bomb squad "didn't blow us up." It could have ended in disaster, it would have been easy to do so. It was a great show of skill and care that it didn't.

 

No numerical rating in this reality. 10/10 in the reality this was warped from, where Abnett wrote more of the series.

Edited February 7 by Roomsky

[DarkChaplain]

"so damn wizard" - I'm getting vietnam flashbacks to The High Republic: Midnight Horizon for some reason....

 

A lot of your thoughts match mine, which is nice, because I'm still stewing over here, unsure how to even approach talking about the book in its totality. I'm still exhausted and frustrated with how uneven it is all in all, the inconsistencies and how Abnett put an actually tight book in front of us at the finish line, after making the two previous parts feel like they're not respecting the reader's time enough.

 

 

[Nagashsnee]

2 hours ago, DarkChaplain said:

I'm still stewing over here, unsure how to even approach talking about the book in its totality. 

I would say there are two options on this. One we follow the authors lead on this, he said its one big book and should be read and treated as such. So treat it as one big book.  Does the good outweigh the bad? If you had to re read it as one big book would you read it all or skim entire sections? Does it have narrative flow? How well does it balance out its plot and pacing, etc etc. 

 

The other option is to ignore what he claims he wanted,, admit its not 1 big book, was not marketed, published or sold as such by BL and thus regardless of what the author wished  treat and review it as it as it was sold, book 1-2 and 3 of the Dan Abnett mini series part of the Siege of Terra mini series part of the Horus Heresy Book series.