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

[Lord_Caerolion]

Damnit I didn’t even consider the first initial.

[tgcleric]

42 minutes ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

I mean, we do have evidence, though?

 

As an example, Horus had a multi-book plot arc of how his “humanity” was in conflict with his “Chaos-side”, so Horus/Maloghurst ritually killed the remaining humanity and sentimentality inside him. 
However, Abnett wanted a sentimental Horus, so that whole plot arc gets ignored so that Horus can weep over how he doesn’t want to kill the Emperor. 
 

Edit: it’s hardly only in this forum either. There’s a reason why his books are commonly referred to as being in the Abnett-verse, given how much he does things his own way. 

 

 

It's not thrown out. First off, it's so metaphysical that its to weird that  it's some gotchya logic puzzle. And that he must have lost 100% of his humanity or it doesn't really make sense. 

 

Ever read a war story and soldiers are completely broken. Or trauma victims losing their humanity. Guess what? Life finds away. Abnett took that completely classic and frankly... human approach to the story. No matter how broken, humanity can shine through. 

 

Also its not like Horus just gets his humanity back. Abnett earns it. "Earning" the character arcs is something that mosr of the other authors could work on. Horus is stripped and broken and coming face to face with his father for the first time. He begins to better unstand his place with the 4. He is challenged by loken. He is tricked into believing he killed his father. Abnett spends the whole book building to it. Its just called good writing. That's not some plot hole or dismissal of others stories. It's just taking the story into a legitimate (and good) direction. Which I'm happy with cause I thought that whole run of slaves of darkness and whatever those other books were of big mad insane angry dumb horus were frankly childish and interminable. Hard to get through IMO.

 

Anyways. That was my view for my 2 read throughs of TEotD vol 3. I really enjoyed it. And felt incredibly lucky to have my three favorite authors write the last 3 books and for Abnett to stick the ending. And to me, he respected (maybe even too much) all that came before it.

 

Also, Abnett-verse was always used to describe his own stories - gaunts and eisenhorn. Outside of this forum, whether it's good reads, or lore youtubes or reddit or whatever, I just don't see much complaining about abnett somehow not respecting the rest of the horus heresy. The response is very much closer to what I'm saying. The desire is that more of the other authors lives up to his characterizations and thematic richness. But it's not worth arguing about the response. Totally valid to not like what abnett did. I just remain perplexed by that specific response to it.  But hey. Just my opinion. 

 

Probably gonna finally read vaults of terra and the rest gaunts finally. I was pretty tired of warhammer leading into EotD. But Abnett gave me a good enough ending that I sort of feel like reading more. Probably the best praise I can give for the last book of a series where I think 20+ books are legitimately terrible. And most of it was just entertaining enough to read.

Edited February 12 by tgcleric

[Lord_Caerolion]

Then what was the point of spending multiple books purposefully removing that aspect of Horus?

 

I’m not saying the way Horus was shown in Vol3 wasn’t good, it was pretty awesome, it just wasn’t in a way that worked with the prior books. Both can be true at the same time.

[Scribe]

37 minutes ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

Then what was the point of spending multiple books purposefully removing that aspect of Horus?

 

To lay the groundwork for it to be reverted by the superior wordsmithing of Abnett in the final volume of the final book of the bespoke subseries of a series near 20 years in the making, and over 60 works long.

 

But of course.

[Lord_Caerolion]

This isn’t just a case of “PTSD-afflicted soldier learns to love again”, Horus and Maloghurst literally ritually killed a portion of Horus’ actual soul, the part of his soul that was emotional and cared about familial ties and love, etc. 

 

That’s what you’re not getting. The series MADE it that it works that way. Hell, even Abnett had it work that way when he has the Emperor jettison the Star Child aspect of himself before reaching Horus. But Abnett ignores all of that for Horus because it doesn’t fit the story he wants to tell. 
 

Then you have the guts to say this proves how much of a team player he is and how carefully he fits his writing around what came before. 
 

He’s a good writer. Volume 3 was absolutely amazing in many, many ways. What it was categorically not, however, was something that fit neatly into other authors. 
 

Want more examples? Lorgar and Erebus. Last we saw Lorgar under a different author, he was excommunicating Erebus for going against his designs. He all but gave him to Khârn for execution. He was cast out. 
 

Now though, we’ve got Lorgar doting over his favouritest son Erebus. 

[Roomsky]

On the Lorgar point, the naming of the Fidelitas Lex isn't as minor as most ship/weapon name blunders. Lorgar letting his flagship burn was another demonstration of how little he cares about what's no longer immediately beneficial to him. Like he did with Kor Phaeron, and Erebus, and Argel Tal, and Angron, and what he attempted to do with Horus and Layak. It was a running element in all writings of the character, not just ADB's. Between Erebus and the Lex, that single chapter shows no interest in his entire expanded characterization, in favour of returning him to "enlightened Chaos man." A characterization ADB took great pains to add depth to.

 

 

[tgcleric]

1 hour ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

This isn’t just a case of “PTSD-afflicted soldier learns to love again”, Horus and Maloghurst literally ritually killed a portion of Horus’ actual soul, the part of his soul that was emotional and cared about familial ties and love, etc. 

 

That’s what you’re not getting. The series MADE it that it works that way. Hell, even Abnett had it work that way when he has the Emperor jettison the Star Child aspect of himself before reaching Horus. But Abnett ignores all of that for Horus because it doesn’t fit the story he wants to tell. 
 

Then you have the guts to say this proves how much of a team player he is and how carefully he fits his writing around what came before. 
 

He’s a good writer. Volume 3 was absolutely amazing in many, many ways. What it was categorically not, however, was something that fit neatly into other authors. 
 

Want more examples? Lorgar and Erebus. Last we saw Lorgar under a different author, he was excommunicating Erebus for going against his designs. He all but gave him to Khârn for execution. He was cast out. 
 

Now though, we’ve got Lorgar doting over his favouritest son Erebus. 

Yeah I have the "guts" to say what almost assuredly the entire black library team and team of authors would say also. 

 

EDIT: nvm. Even more perplexed why I'm fighting this battle. Just adding my voice here. I loved the book. Looking at good reads, my ranking of siege of terra would actually be more or less identical to how those rating pan out.

 

Saturnine and Echoes are great.

Warhawk and EotD (as one book) are very good. 

 

Lost and the Damned was okay.

 

Solar War and First Wall are pretty bad.

 

Mortis was almost unreadable. 

 

That is all. 

Edited February 13 by tgcleric

[Lord_Caerolion]

This is absolutely a complaint we lay against other authors, it’s just that this is specifically a thread about Abnetts books, so we’re going to be discussing him more here. 
 

Edit: as an example, fan favourite AD-B got ripped into for calling Dorn the IVth Primarch.

Edited February 13 by Lord_Caerolion

[DarkChaplain]

12 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

Every complaint you have about abnett not conforming to other authors can and should be levied to those very authors.

 

...you're literally saying that authors whose works were commissioned, written, edited and signed off on before being put into print and released unto the public, in many cases 5 years ago and more, should be blamed for the literal final novel of the series retconning and ignoring their contents.

 

I can't even.

 

13 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

Take any book and you'll find contradictions.

 

Inconsistencies, perhaps, mostly with how certain aspects are interpreted. Those are generally down to the details, not the basics, which are messed up on time and again in this novel.

15 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

And considering Abnett made the character Horus in horus rising. And then had to watch as Every other author could barely write him better than a high school fan fiction, then yeah. It's pretty awesome he came back and wrote an actual story with him. 

 

Jesus, buddy... We might as well blame the publisher/GW that they didn't let glorious Dan Abnett write the entire series start to finish. It's almost as if the opening trilogy alone was already commissioned as a multi-author work, with all three working together to make it work.

 

BL should get a flogging for also having Dan leave from the series after book 27 (which I'll still call one of the worst books in the series, for similar reasons: It mischaracterizes characters and ignores setup all over, while not writing to the premise until the very end), being gone for literally half the entire series, leaving his own plotlines and characters hanging in literal nowhere-and-everywhere timey wimey warp transit for about as long as he needed to get from Pariah to Penitent.

 

After all.... No one writes as well as Abnett. Nobody can hold a candle to him. And if they bend over backwards to reconcile inconsistencies, shame on them, they should've just gotten too deep into their own vision and simply forget that they're not the only kid building castles on the beach.

 

....it's not like Dan has made a career writing tie-in fiction. He knows the game.

 

23 minutes ago, tgcleric said:

If ya'll wanna just read "a soulless being is hit by a big sword and feels nothing" you can read the paragraph blurb in the old rule books. 

 

You're strawmanning real hard again. Nobody is saying that it shouldn't be developed and made to be more impactful than a Codex blurb. You seem to think that there's only the Dan Way™ or drivel not worth reading - which everybody here will object to, I'd wager. Surprisingly, you can write a good story while still adhering to pre-established continuity and character arcs. You need not reinvent the wheel til it's an oval, you can just roll with it.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

Edit: as an example, fan favourite AD-B got ripped into for calling Dorn the IVth Primarch.

 

Which is a weird mistake to make. I was thinking on this, and not only was it a mistake, but editorial didnt catch it? I wondered while walking the dog once if this was some lore nugget that I missed, then I read that ADB checked out because of reddit or whatever, and I wondered if that was part of it, and I just never looked into it.

[Nagashsnee]

11 hours ago, tgcleric said:

I think Abnett performed a bit of a miracle with TEoTD.

 

Cant argue with this, i mean you could (other above me foolishly tried) but it would be meaningless, pissing into the wind will at least provide very very negative consequences which is not what anyone wants but its at least proof that the energy wasted did something.  Like the God Emperor you have deified Abnett and his works and thus made them utterly immune to logic and factual based arguments and criticisms.  

 

I am glad you enjoyed it to the extent you did, if anything i am jealous. I cant remember the last time i read a book BL or other that made me feel like that.  

 

 

[TheArtilleryman]

7 hours ago, Cactus said:

@Lord_Caerolion, E Keeler / aquila is such a DAbnett pun I'm amazed I haven't seen it before.

(My favourite pun name is still Philly O'Fish from Sinister Dexter.)

I think this one is a bit of a stretch. “Aquila” is pronounced “Ak-will-uh.” Not sure a pun is intended this time…

 

Incidentally, my favourite pun name is Pratchett’s “Djelibeybi” :)

Edited February 13 by TheArtilleryman

[DukeLeto69]

Can’t resist anymore. You are ALL wrong (and ALL right of course) because…

 

THE WARP DID IT!

[Cerbero666]

On 2/11/2024 at 8:17 PM, DarkChaplain said:

"Sigismund acts the way he would have pre-Emperor's Champion, when he became the instrument of vengeance"

 

This was the part that woke me to Abnett's discharding of all the previous character development. At the end of Warhawk, Sigismund was a manifestation of vengeance, was pure purpouse, pure wrath, he was, by then, the eternal crusader that was going to found and lead the Black Templars on a hunt for the traitors during the Scouring and beyond. The one that duels with Abaddon with nothing but spite for him and what he represents. So much that even a Khorne fuelled and maddened Khârn trembled in fear at his sight. By TEATD he's just the same Imperial Fist captain that we knew pre-Warhawk. 

 

Same with Dorn, at the end of the Siege, after wasting his whole energy on the war, being trapped in a Khorne Groundhog Day for what appears to be millenia, and seeing his father mutilated and mostly dead, he just keeps his chill demeanour. No rage, no guilt, he's just the same stony character from Horus Rising. He even calms Valdor several times through the third act. Is this the same Dorn that throws himself and his legion against the Iron Cage? 

[Rob P]

Following on from some of the points about Abnett pulling one way and other authors pulling another is Little Horus.

 

By the end of Galaxy in Flames we get a glimpse of a potentially regretful Little Horus who Abaddon feels may need to be taken out at some point.

 

In the Abnett short 'Little Horus' we see him being positioned as an antagonist for Loken.

 

In Vengeful Spirit, just after Horus becomes uber-Horus, we see Little Horus' doubts seeping back in.

 

By Abnett's Saturnine Little Horus is back to just being an antagonist for Loken.

 

Now some of my dislike probably stems from liking the idea of emotional conflict for Little Horus and this being, imo, the better story to tell. Some of the Loken scenes in TEATD could have worked extremely well (better?) for Little Horus. But even if i'm pushing against the tide of popular opinion, there is no doubt that Abnett's plan for this character did not gel well wth other protrayals.

 

-----------------

 

If it seems like i'm being unfair to Abnett, don't get me started on the completely uneven take on Lorgar we get across multiple books by multiple authors in the series.

[DukeLeto69]

1 hour ago, Rob P said:

Following on from some of the points about Abnett pulling one way and other authors pulling another is Little Horus.

 

By the end of Galaxy in Flames we get a glimpse of a potentially regretful Little Horus who Abaddon feels may need to be taken out at some point.

 

In the Abnett short 'Little Horus' we see him being positioned as an antagonist for Loken.

 

In Vengeful Spirit, just after Horus becomes uber-Horus, we see Little Horus' doubts seeping back in.

 

By Abnett's Saturnine Little Horus is back to just being an antagonist for Loken.

 

Now some of my dislike probably stems from liking the idea of emotional conflict for Little Horus and this being, imo, the better story to tell. Some of the Loken scenes in TEATD could have worked extremely well (better?) for Little Horus. But even if i'm pushing against the tide of popular opinion, there is no doubt that Abnett's plan for this character did not gel well wth other protrayals.

 

-----------------

 

If it seems like i'm being unfair to Abnett, don't get me started on the completely uneven take on Lorgar we get across multiple books by multiple authors in the series.

Loken should have stayed dead. I think Abnett intended him to be dead. I think BL decided to revive him. I think some of what Loken did since coming back to life was always intended for other characters originally.

[TheArtilleryman]

2 hours ago, Rob P said:

Following on from some of the points about Abnett pulling one way and other authors pulling another is Little Horus.

 

By the end of Galaxy in Flames we get a glimpse of a potentially regretful Little Horus who Abaddon feels may need to be taken out at some point.

 

In the Abnett short 'Little Horus' we see him being positioned as an antagonist for Loken.

 

In Vengeful Spirit, just after Horus becomes uber-Horus, we see Little Horus' doubts seeping back in.

 

By Abnett's Saturnine Little Horus is back to just being an antagonist for Loken.

 

Now some of my dislike probably stems from liking the idea of emotional conflict for Little Horus and this being, imo, the better story to tell. Some of the Loken scenes in TEATD could have worked extremely well (better?) for Little Horus. But even if i'm pushing against the tide of popular opinion, there is no doubt that Abnett's plan for this character did not gel well wth other protrayals.

 

-----------------

 

If it seems like i'm being unfair to Abnett, don't get me started on the completely uneven take on Lorgar we get across multiple books by multiple authors in the series.

I think this is one of the issues with the short stories. They are great for BL because they provide extra “drip” income that adds up in the background, like a series of little in-game purchases. However, I feel they are often a bit contrived and poorly written. The ending of the Little Horus short is soooo bad it made me cringe. I’d much rather they had just stuck to full novels throughout.

[Roomsky]

3 hours ago, DukeLeto69 said:

Loken should have stayed dead. I think Abnett intended him to be dead. I think BL decided to revive him. I think some of what Loken did since coming back to life was always intended for other characters originally.

 

I wish I could find the source, I believe it was a video interview, but I have found other forum posts mentioning it so I know I'm not insane. Abnett said he never intended for Loken to die in the original trilogy, and certainly wasn't going to let some other author kill him off. I don't know how much of that is George Lucas style revisionist history, since the series originally wasn't going to be very long, but Garvi's return and big role in whatever Abnett had in mind for an ending were a long time coming. 

 

@Rob P - genuinelly curious about your thoughts on Lorgar. Outside of Abnett, I thought his characterization was quite consistent throughout.

[TheArtilleryman]

44 minutes ago, Roomsky said:

 

I wish I could find the source, I believe it was a video interview, but I have found other forum posts mentioning it so I know I'm not insane. Abnett said he never intended for Loken to die in the original trilogy, and certainly wasn't going to let some other author kill him off. I don't know how much of that is George Lucas style revisionist history, since the series originally wasn't going to be very long, but Garvi's return and big role in whatever Abnett had in mind for an ending were a long time coming. 

 

@Rob P - genuinelly curious about your thoughts on Lorgar. Outside of Abnett, I thought his characterization was quite consistent throughout.

That does sound right, as there is no confirmation of his death. The building collapsed on top of him, but it’s not like someone pulled his corpse from the wreckage. I totally never thought he was dead for a second.

[DarkChaplain]

Just for perspective: Loken was dead for 5 years in publishing timelines. He died in 2006 and returned in 2011 as a twist in a Garro audio drama, which had short story follow-ups, but didn't actually return to a novel until Vengeful Spirit. That was in 2014. Legion of One released just before Age of Darkness, book 16, so Loken was dead for 13 novels, some of which were by Abnett, others were about the Sons of Horus, with multiple books and short stories dealing with the aftermath of Isstvan III and V.

 

I could see that they might have reasonably left the option open to them to bring Loken back, but looking at how he was brought back, the whole Cerberus thing, the Torgaddon/Tormageddon thing (which got hamstrung again by Abnett, concluding on a whimper), the way that Iacton Qruze was the real star of Vengeful Spirit, the way Loken meandered through Garro's plotlines and it never even comes to a proper conversation between Loken and Aximand before the latter's end in Saturnine...

 

I honestly don't buy it that Loken was brought back with a clear vision and direction to take him in.

[63-19]

After the building fell on Loken I'm pretty sure the traitors bombarded isstvan 3 for the last time before moving on. I always got the impression that he died.

[Rob P]

2 hours ago, Roomsky said:

@Rob P - genuinelly curious about your thoughts on Lorgar. Outside of Abnett, I thought his characterization was quite consistent throughout.

This will be super clumsy because I've only reread one HH book (Fear to Tread - to see if it was as bad on a second read and it was not as bad) and, other than maybe the first 4-5, and the first 3-4 of the Siege of Terra, I've read the rest within a couple of months of release so many Lorgar ones were read ages ago.

 

Here we go:

 

Start of First Heretic - he's a wet wipe

In the Eye of Terror (First Heretic/Aurelian) - finds his faith and gets mentally and physically strong

End of First Heretic - wet wipe scared of Corax

Betrayer - Strong enough mentally and physically to confront and overpower Daemon Fulgrim

Know No Fear (start iirc) - motivated by faith rather than vengeance

KNF (middle bit)- Uber powerful but vengeful

Slaves to Darkness - Sly and a bit of a wet wipe

TEATD - the closest he was in char after leaving the eye

Edit: post HH short (name?) - He's running scared of Daemon Corax

 

I think the Lorgar novella is propaganda but that falls more into other elements of the character rather than the question of competent architect or coward (whilst not true opposites I think they fit here).

 

In terms of where he is as a character, I do like Lorgar but I'm not sure where he is on his journey at the end of the series. I do believe he has some growth to do, as with Perturabo, because they thankfully have 10k years of opportunity for development compared to Fulgrim and others that seem to have developed in 10 years from the loyal primarch to the 40k character. Is Lorgar a stooge of chaos? I'm still not sure. Does he remove himself from the board by 40k. Is he a true daemon prince in 40k or even alive? He has a lofty concept of the chaos gods whilst the 'true' concept seems more aligned with Erebus and Kor Phaeron e.g. betraying, chaotic, and in flux. He has a plan which seems conceptually incompatible with the idea of chaos.

 

He's my favourite primarch because he has a lot of heart and introspective qualities and he'd 'do good' in the 40k Imperium

Edited February 14 by Rob P

[DukeLeto69]

1 hour ago, DarkChaplain said:

Just for perspective: Loken was dead for 5 years in publishing timelines. He died in 2006 and returned in 2011 as a twist in a Garro audio drama, which had short story follow-ups, but didn't actually return to a novel until Vengeful Spirit. That was in 2014. Legion of One released just before Age of Darkness, book 16, so Loken was dead for 13 novels, some of which were by Abnett, others were about the Sons of Horus, with multiple books and short stories dealing with the aftermath of Isstvan III and V.

 

I could see that they might have reasonably left the option open to them to bring Loken back, but looking at how he was brought back, the whole Cerberus thing, the Torgaddon/Tormageddon thing (which got hamstrung again by Abnett, concluding on a whimper), the way that Iacton Qruze was the real star of Vengeful Spirit, the way Loken meandered through Garro's plotlines and it never even comes to a proper conversation between Loken and Aximand before the latter's end in Saturnine...

 

I honestly don't buy it that Loken was brought back with a clear vision and direction to take him in.

Exactly. I do not believe Abnett had a plan for Loken. Yeah leave the door open or his fate ambiguous but no. Loken was not planned in to be there in the End (and the Death) from the start. His reappearance was hamfisted. He meandered and was rather lacking in purpose for a good while. He should have stayed dead.

[Roomsky]

53 minutes ago, Rob P said:

Good stuff

 

Interesting! I've found all his appearances gel together quite well, except for Abnett's maddened zealot:

 

TFH: Already displaying an intensely manipulative side. When Ingethel asks for his sons, his response is a pretty clear "what's in it for me?" instead of a defense of his legion's wellbeing. He's one of the "nicer" primarchs, but also coldly enacts a plan to turn the legions against the Emperor and cause untold suffering. Upon being rebuffed for worshipping the Emperor, he's rather quick to find a new source of divinity instead of properly reevaluating himself. His arrogant nature is starting to manifest by the end.

 

Aurelian: This is after he's had his little psychic awakening, and he knows more about Chaos than any of his brother primarchs. He's throwing his newfound weight around but remains ever the priestly figure.

 

Betrayer: Most of his pleasant façade has dropped away now, and he makes it clear that Erebus and Kor Phaeron held their positions only insofar as they remained useful to him. His brotherly love for Angron amounts to his damning Angron to an eternity of the torment he wanted to end, all dressed up in the idea of "saving" him. His friendly attitude was just to manipulate people into bringing about the full Ruinstorm. He's full mask-off psychopath at several moments.

 

Slaves to Darkness: Lorgar has a new favourite toy yet again, and doesn't seem to care in the slightest that Angron's legion just didn't make their post-jump rendezvous one day. He seems to finally have his ideal second in Layak, someone he can pour his intent into and won't have an inconvenient set of values getting in the way. At this point, he's also convinced himself Horus' power, influence, and charisma are secondary to his desire to be high priest of the Pantheon. His arc concludes with both decisions coming back to bite him, with Layak being such a blank slate that an external party could manipulate him as well. He's no longer just full of himself, he's starting to slide into delusion by thinking he can take Horus' place.

 

Bearer of the Word: Kor Phaeron's whole internal monologue at the end basically just spells out how he's always used those around him to justify what he independently wants to do. This is backed up by how quickly he killed Nario, simply because Kor Phaeron was the more useful of his 2 mentors.

 

The only outlier seems to be Abnett portraying the character as genuinely putting the will of the Gods first, instead of preaching Chaos because they allow him to adopt the role he's wanted since day 1.

[Rob P]

23 minutes ago, Roomsky said:

 

Interesting!

Interesting too! I've clearly taken the most sympathetic position on his aims. Perhaps a saviour complex but seeing what he does as the only way to save humanity from chaos (by symbiosis). I will have to re-read but not now.

 

Either way I'd like a story progressing Lorgar's development.