The Horus Heresy - A Retrospective?

[EverythingIsGreat]

On 1/31/2024 at 6:07 AM, Nagashsnee said:

TUE was basically a set up for a entire narrative arc (Imperium Secundus) that died in the crib.

 

On 1/31/2024 at 8:53 AM, DukeLeto69 said:

In the real world I think the writing of TUE coincided with the regime change at BL and the phase where the studio began driving things again and authors like Abnett stopped working for BL for a while. I think it is no coincidence TUE is the shortest HH novel Abnett wrote. I think be lost the love. 

 

The regime change also shepherded the 8th edition (Imperium Nihilus/RG return/Indomitous etcetc), where knowledge of the existence of Imperium Secundus is suppressed, and where the old history may act as a foil to the new era, perhaps soonish. This means new campaigns i.e. more ways to use your models, and more reasons to buy them (including eventually your brand new Pimaris models).

[Jareddm]

If Imperium Secundus was an attempt to maintain the Imperium as it was at that moment, but that the Imperium as it was was not what the Emperor intended it to be, it's likely that the Emperor would've opposed the whole idea of Imperium Secundus from the start if he had known about it.  It would've been interested to have seen the clash between those 'in the know' regarding where the Emperor was driving humanity against those who were trying to maintain the status quo of the Imperium. Though the only groups I could really see occupying the former would be Custodes, and maybe some Knights Errant. Just a rambling thought.

[Roomsky]

Horus isn't Homelander

 

So, let's talk about the man who's name is on the tin. This is going to be another critique so I'm going to lead with something more positive: I think book Horus is a fine character. He's not the character we expected, probably not the character we wanted, and not the character the books seem to think he is. If you can somehow separate him from those 3 things I think he's not bad (he's also not the only primarch you need some cognitive dissonance to enjoy, either.)

 

Book Horus, to me, is what happens when someone with supreme talent isn't given a chance to grow through challenge and adversity. He's constantly rewarded for things that require no effort on his part, and for decades had the galaxy's most powerful man as a father figure. He always wins, he's physically unstoppable, he has a supernatural aura of charisma, has the resources of an entire space-faring empire at his beck and call, and an superhuman grasp of logistics that make even the most bizarre tactical decisions a success. Of course, that means that meaningful challenge, previously something thought impossible, is going to crack that composure wide-open. Suddenly his leaps of tactical genius become insane if success isn't guaranteed, ditto for his other attributes.

 

It's a typical villainous archetype, but for good reason. It works, and makes them easy to understand. I get who Horus is, and why he does what he does.

 

Thing is, we are repeatedly told that Horus is not only a superhuman intellect and master statesman beyond even his primarch's charisma field, but that he's the best of all his brothers save perhaps Sanguinius in these regards. This guy is gassed up at every opportunity and then proceeds to frequently crack under pressure, take unnecessary risks, and speak with the charisma of [insert inept politician of choice.] How are we supposed to reconcile this? We can't, really, Horus the character is not an avatar of Horus the plot device. Worse, if Horus the character is how he's supposed to be seen, then the Emperor's greatest blunder wasn't Nuceria, nor his poor communication skills. It was elevating an obvious manchild to Warmaster when Guilliman, Sanguinius, Dorn, and Vulkan were available. Based on their first meeting, bloody Russ would probably have been a better candidate.

 

Basically, Horus is the prime example of why making primarchs as superhuman as they are, in the positions they occupy, was such a mistake. The authors aren't superhuman, generally don't possess ungodly charisma, and probably aren't familiar with any impressive military strategy. They boxed themselves in to writing something you could argue no one has the chops to actually write in detail.

 

This all set me to thinking what could have been done instead:

1. Primarchs are just the first of their astartes bloodline, the legions have some baked-in loyalty to them and inherit their traits. The inhuman intellect and charisma really is the major sticking point here, but Horus' behaviour is absolutely something I would buy from a space marine. This angle would make all of them come across as more down to earth, and the damage they carry would be more understandable in general.
2. Primarchs are superhuman political officers. Instead of being actual generals, they're space marines with hugely buffed physical stats. They're meant to lead from the front, and be almost impossible to take down. The awe they inspire, when charisma doesn't cut it, comes from their insane feats beside the infantry. This could be sort of a Captain America model; they make public appearances, mingle with the troops, and are held up as the posterchildren of the "ideal" imperial soldier. This has the added benefit of making primarch duels less contrived. The Heresy could be a result of their frustration with being used as tools by the actual commanding officers, and the masses would follow them because they're who the troops actually adore.
3. Primarchs just don't get as much focus. If their rousing speeches and strategic genius are heard about second-hand, then our imaginations will make them as competent as they can. Easy fix, even if it limits how much the authors can actually show off the ridiculous stats they've given the primarchs.
4. One of the above is combined with a more human depiction of the Emperor. If the Emperor isn't actually a giant golden god who can evaporate armies instantly, I buy that characters would be quicker to rebel. If he's actually shown as being somewhat sentimental to his own creations, then I could buy him being willfully blind to his first-found son's shortcomings.

 

Options 1 and 2, combined with option 4, are fertile ground for making Horus as compelling an antagonist as a character like Homelander. Their authority and power rest on a stunted mind that was never properly prepared to wield them. They see themselves as the ultimate power in their sphere, so why should they be humble? Why should they respect anyone's wants but their own? And like with Homelander, if we make the primarchs' brainpower more down to earth, we can be more accepting of some really twisted psychological drama. As-is, I feel like the authors limited themselves in their attempts to make them seem like noble, wise godlike figures. Either have us right there with Konrad Curze's thought process, put effort into making it nuanced, human, and understandable, or else don't have him happily skinning thousands of people so damned quickly.

 

All that to say, I don't think Horus is lacking characterization, nor that he's an uncompelling one. He just doesn't make sense.

[Karhedron]

Human authors trying to come up with superhuman thought processes and strategies are always going to struggle. I can think of only a handful of authors who can successfully pull this off (Timothy Zahn's Thrawn is the first example I can remember). ABD actually pulled this off with Sanguinius' final speech before the Ultimate Gate but a lot of attempts to show the Primarchs' superhuman minds fall short. 

 

In some ways I  can see why they shied away from showing the Emperor too much and have avoided using him as a POV character. If it is hard to get the Primarchs convincing then how much harder to do justice to the one who created them.

[EverythingIsGreat]

7 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Human authors trying to come up with superhuman thought processes and strategies are always going to struggle. I can think of only a handful of authors who can successfully pull this off (Timothy Zahn's Thrawn is the first example I can remember). ABD actually pulled this off with Sanguinius' final speech before the Ultimate Gate but a lot of attempts to show the Primarchs' superhuman minds fall short. 

 

In some ways I  can see why they shied away from showing the Emperor too much and have avoided using him as a POV character. If it is hard to get the Primarchs convincing then how much harder to do justice to the one who created them.

 

Obviously. But also because any Emperor POV forces possible future iterations of the IP into conforming with the narrative the POV establishes or retconning it. That’s an unnecessary and avoidable limitation of GW’s direction relative to WH30K/40K. Especially if there is no real reason for it. The background lore has always followed the foreground game, and large gaps in the lore continuum is the result, to be filled in when/if the foreground may call for it. From a lore standpoint, strategically or opportunistically allowing mystery and fan interpretation (head canon) can carry the narrative further and make it more engaging.

 

The problem with depictions of superhumans and nonhumans (including aliens, spiritual entities and intelligent machines) is the need to make them relatable to human readers when they may have no commonality at all, except the need to continue existing. So authors tend to “humanize” them. Even Chaos in the GW universes is given form recognizable by us, in contradiction to chaos, which is by definition lack of form.

Edited February 2 by EverythingIsGreat
clarity

[Scribe]

I really dont buy that. The better representations of Marines and Astartes, reflect a human element, either magnified, or shown to be a flaw/weakness, or in the exceptional case of Sanguinius, his humanity is a strength. The Emperor absolutely could have been done the same, especially as we know that he IS flawed, does have blind spots, and is not an omnipotent God by any stretch.

[cheywood]

10 hours ago, EverythingIsGreat said:

The problem with depictions of superhumans and nonhumans (including aliens, spiritual entities and intelligent machines) is the need to make them relatable to human readers when they may have no commonality at all, except the need to continue existing. So authors tend to “humanize” them. Even Chaos in the GW universes is given form recognizable by us, in contradiction to chaos, which is by definition lack of form.

From a watsonian perspective The Emperor explicitly believes in the preservation of humanity and endowed his greatest, most terrible creations, the Primarchs, with emotions because he views them as essential. Thus it’s logical in-universe for most of the Emperor’s creations to still possess that spark of humanity. Some authors might overindulge in that, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it a fundamental problem. 
 

From a doylist perspective reading book after book about unemotional killing machines that only act ‘rationally’ is incredibly unappealing to me. Fiction is, to some degree, the transfer of emotion between the creator(s) and the consumer using characters, themes, and imagery as intermediaries. It’s not impossible to write a compelling book that features unemotional characters, but it is a lot harder. The emotion gives readers something to care about and relate to, even if the character’s circumstances are entirely fantastic compared to real life. 

[EverythingIsGreat]

Well, yes. Obviously authors have to tell a story that presses certain buttons. In order to do that they often have to be contradictory, and the craft is in de-emphasizing the contradictions. A non-human anything may have absolutely no relation to us. Terms and concepts such as "rationality", "causality", "emotion", "chance" could mean nothing to them, since they are human constructs, and we view life from that perspective. But the audience for novels is humans, who have emotional needs, who are willing to overlook messy details in order to have closure, who need to be told a "story".

 

Imo, the contradictions required to pull the stories through are not artfully hidden in some WH30K/40K stories.

 

In Watson's novels, we do not get an Emperor POV. We get telepathic messages by the Emperor that are open to interpretation and are fragmented and contradictory. Or this is how Draco receives them.

[EverythingIsGreat]

I did not want to comment on the HH until I have finished SoT 8/3 (I am going through it slowly). There is an omniscient statement about the Emperor, stated directly by the author

 

Spoiler

The Dark King abdication also removed part of his emotional makeup.

 

A bit crudely put (which emotional part? did this happen willingly? was it part of the collateral damage of the abdication?)

But it is authoritative, as of early 2024.

 

Primarchs are made, with a certain emotional makeup required per their maker's specifications. Was it because the maker wanted them to feel? Maybe. Maybe the maker added the artificially grown emotions only as part of their function as weapons. Who knows? Readers don't have that awareness, and in-story the Primarchs certainly don't. Some of them have been told stuff by another character (Malcador). Is that stuff true? subterfuge? misunderstanding?

[Scribe]

Spoiler

Again, we already knew from Valdor that the Emperor had given up his humanity.

That's a clear miss from Abnett to me.

[System Sound]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

  Hide contents

Again, we already knew from Valdor that the Emperor had given up his humanity.

That's a clear miss from Abnett to me.

It's just one of those Abnettian quirks, just like astartesian.....

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, System Sound said:

It's just one of those Abnettian quirks, just like astartesian.....

 

lol I cannot begrudge the man if he likes to make up words and try and impress with his vocabulary, but if he's going to assassinate a Characters character (Valdor) or just...miss represent the state of things (Emp Emotions re: Valdor) then I dont know why we shouldn't call that out.

[EverythingIsGreat]

Whatever Valdor or Malcador or anybody says about the Emperor is irrelevant. They are character opinions and can be agreed upon or contradicted in the next page or next novel by other opinions or the "truth" (the IP).

 

The spoiler on my previous post was not by a character. It was by the Emperor-character creator, in this instance Abnett. He makes an authoritative statement as the author. This is as close to IP that BL can get, and much harder to reconcile without extraneous material.

 

Spoiler

The Emperor "jettisoning" his human apparatus in the Warp is in agreement with the Star Child's origin per another character creator (Watson) though the details vary.

 

Edited February 2 by EverythingIsGreat

[Marshal Rohr]

17 hours ago, EverythingIsGreat said:

 

Obviously. But also because any Emperor POV forces possible future iterations of the IP into conforming with the narrative the POV establishes or retconning it. That’s an unnecessary and avoidable limitation of GW’s direction relative to WH30K/40K. Especially if there is no real reason for it. The background lore has always followed the foreground game, and large gaps in the lore continuum is the result, to be filled in when/if the foreground may call for it. From a lore standpoint, strategically or opportunistically allowing mystery and fan interpretation (head canon) can carry the narrative further and make it more engaging.

 

The problem with depictions of superhumans and nonhumans (including aliens, spiritual entities and intelligent machines) is the need to make them relatable to human readers when they may have no commonality at all, except the need to continue existing. So authors tend to “humanize” them. Even Chaos in the GW universes is given form recognizable by us, in contradiction to chaos, which is by definition lack of form.

Chaos is only a lack of form in the warp, by the rules of the setting to even exist in reality it must begin to take a form. That’s why Daemons look like their models to people unaffected by chaos, like the sisters of silence. It’s the Flatland dimensional principles. It’s not “making them relatable to human readers”, humans can understand that a long lived Eldar perceives time differently or a thinking machine cannot actually see or hear. It’s not a “problem” with their depiction, it’s an authorial skill. 

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, EverythingIsGreat said:

Whatever Valdor or Malcador or anybody says about the Emperor is irrelevant. They are character opinions and can be agreed upon or contradicted in the next page or next novel by other opinions or the "truth" (the IP).

 

Ah, the mutable canon position. That's fine and all, but considering the eyes on the Emperor are those closest and in his circle and that's expressly how we have seen the Emperor...

[EverythingIsGreat]

6 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Chaos is only a lack of form in the warp, by the rules of the setting to even exist in reality it must begin to take a form. That’s why Daemons look like their models to people unaffected by chaos, like the sisters of silence. It’s the Flatland dimensional principles. It’s not “making them relatable to human readers”, humans can understand that a long lived Eldar perceives time differently or a thinking machine cannot actually see or hear. It’s not a “problem” with their depiction, it’s an authorial skill. 

 

Bit that's a circular argument. In the sense that the above describes an attempt to make the alien relatable, and then proclaiming that relatability is not the issue.

 

The argument was that some of the attempts to make the alien realatable are not handled well, and the contradictory state of affairs sometimes shows.

[Marshal Rohr]

It’s not a circular argument, your ability to relate to a thinking machine or alien is irrelevant, the information and facts are seperated from how you feel about the thinking machine and alien. You knowing what red looks like has no bearing on the machine simply processing information. Eldrad experiencing your lifetime as an afternoon is irrelevant to how you feel about living that life. 

[EverythingIsGreat]

6 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Ah, the mutable canon position. That's fine and all, but considering the eyes on the Emperor are those closest and in his circle and that's expressly how we have seen the Emperor...

 

That was not my point. I am reviewing aspects of a certain fictional universe. I am not now trying to be part of it, not even as a fan. In this thread, I am interested about the ways the authors of this universe go about constructing it (with the HH being a significant chunk). What are the constraints. Whether there is internal consistency or not. Why inconsistencies arise (as they do). Whether they must arise or not. Whether author statements are fundamental and authoritative or whether they are transient, or perhaps facilitating devices. 

[Bobss]

I've followed this series on-and-off for about 15 years and I can't even be bothered to write a retrospective

 

Sad

[Lord_Caerolion]

Part of what the series missed, although this would require making it longer (unless we removed some of the lesser books) is that we never got much of a look at the golden era of the Crusade, to see why it’s such a tragedy that Horus fell, the impact of Ferrus’ death, etc. 

The initial rush to get everything covered ASAP meant things like this got glossed over, and never really ended up covered. 
 

The Iron Hands, for example, only ever ended up in Shattered Legions stories and their Primarch novella, which were both… not great quality. 

[DukeLeto69]

4 hours ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

Part of what the series missed, although this would require making it longer (unless we removed some of the lesser books) is that we never got much of a look at the golden era of the Crusade, to see why it’s such a tragedy that Horus fell, the impact of Ferrus’ death, etc. 

The initial rush to get everything covered ASAP meant things like this got glossed over, and never really ended up covered. 
 

The Iron Hands, for example, only ever ended up in Shattered Legions stories and their Primarch novella, which were both… not great quality. 

IMO The Primarch series would have been a good vehicle to entirely focus on The Great Crusade. Origin stories to explain both the Primarchs themselves and the “personality/history” of their legion.

[Krelious]

On 1/29/2024 at 3:19 PM, Roomsky said:

I certainly don't blame him if all that contributed to his decision. People still parrot memes about his writing, clearly having not actually read his works themselves.

 

I'm tired and about to go to bed, havent finished or really started End and the Death yet because im still mad about the pre-order stuff, so im reading the Night Lord trilogy instead and so far its been cheering me up. 

 

Having not read the whole series I can say it has its ups and downs and I have my personal tastes as kind of being a dissenting voice in that I think Abnett is over-rated but not bad. 

What I can say about this series is that perhaps theres a meta-plot of the tragedy of wasted potential as this series could have been really something else if it continued with the quality that it started off with but the reality is that it comes across to me as a bloated mess with horrible corporate oversight likely looking to milk every last drop they could from it while lacking the good sense to invest money into stopping the scalping problem which has existed for several years now at least. 

 

A big problem is that you cant just follow the crowd, you have to stand firm and make up your own mind about what you are interested in what you like and what authors you favour. For me personally I think ADB, Wraight, and Swallow are the best while Mcneils early work was good. I look at people like Mcneil and Haley as being like the bread and butter guys of 40k. They know how to tell competent stories but they also arent going to wow you most of the time. 

 

I think ADB and Wraight hands down wrote the best siege books that its not even close while my personal taste is that I do not like John French very much as I found his two siege books unreadable due to being boring as hell after 150-200 pages, I did get to Slaves to Darkness and I found the same problem as he basically spent 2/3 of the book building to the point where all the plot threads came together. I really dislike authors who make it so that their work is boring/tedious build up to a point thats a pay off because it just feels like a chore to read.  I still have Heresy books on my backlog that id like to get to at somepoint like Pharos and Praetorian of Dorn, maybe event he Unremembered Empire Storyline. Id also confess that I havent gotten around to reading Scars and Path of Heaven while ive read the Khan Primarch book and Warhawk. What I did focus on in my reading was the Deamon prince Primarch stories, the early books, KNF,  the Garro stories, and the Sons of Horus storyline along with short stories here and there.  It just feels like a lot to get through and theres even more like Fear to Tread which im on the fence about buying and reading. 

 

Gav Thorpe is awful and I hope he never publishes another book again but its clear the worst book in the HH series was Battle for the Abyss as its the only book I intentionally lost and I dont care. 

[darkhorse0607]

13 hours ago, Lord_Caerolion said:

Part of what the series missed, although this would require making it longer (unless we removed some of the lesser books) is that we never got much of a look at the golden era of the Crusade, to see why it’s such a tragedy that Horus fell, the impact of Ferrus’ death, etc. 

The initial rush to get everything covered ASAP meant things like this got glossed over, and never really ended up covered. 
 

The Iron Hands, for example, only ever ended up in Shattered Legions stories and their Primarch novella, which were both… not great quality. 

 

I still think in the end someone is going to go back and write an Ullanor novel. I agree though, things would have more weight in the long term with the series if we had gotten more of the "good times" during the Crusade.

 

I'm not saying it needs another 70 books to flesh out, but the short story Wolf of Ash and Fire is a good example. Rather than just hearing about how the Emperor and Horus were bros, it shows us and has them both take the field together which adds to the fall a little more imo.

 

I don't dispute where they started the series because the plan as it was went off the rails, but I would eventually like some Crusade stories as long as it doesn't fall too much into

 

"LOOK AT THIS FORSHADOWING, YOU GET IT?! ITS SO SUBTLE WINK WINK"

[Emperor's Angel]

I gotta be honest… I think I’m done with the Black Library now that the HH is finished.

 

Im over Primarchs.  The Dark Angels were cooler after the Lion, and before his return.  And the Ultramarines were better after Guilliman was turned into a shrine and before he woke up.

 

The new post Primaris setting just feels like an extension of the HH… 

 

I like my Primarchs dead and missing.  I miss Mk VII armor… and the HH was cooler when all we knew about it were bits of fluff here or there that was probably a lie of some kind.

 

Im old.  And I think I now am convinced that the BL didn’t tell better stories than 12 year old me imagined when piecing together the lore myself in the 90s.

 

If you asked me if I had to choose between all of my HH books or the Night Lords Trilogy or Helsreach… it’s not even close.  I’d burn all my HH books.

[DukeLeto69]

2 hours ago, Emperor's Angel said:

I gotta be honest… I think I’m done with the Black Library now that the HH is finished.

 

Im over Primarchs.  The Dark Angels were cooler after the Lion, and before his return.  And the Ultramarines were better after Guilliman was turned into a shrine and before he woke up.

 

The new post Primaris setting just feels like an extension of the HH… 

 

I like my Primarchs dead and missing.  I miss Mk VII armor… and the HH was cooler when all we knew about it were bits of fluff here or there that was probably a lie of some kind.

 

Im old.  And I think I now am convinced that the BL didn’t tell better stories than 12 year old me imagined when piecing together the lore myself in the 90s.

 

If you asked me if I had to choose between all of my HH books or the Night Lords Trilogy or Helsreach… it’s not even close.  I’d burn all my HH books.

It is sad we have fans that now think that way. Understandable but sad.

 

However, surely you wouldn't burn Horus Rising, Legion, A Thousand Sons, The First Heretic, Know No Fear, Betrayer, Scars, The Path of Heaven, The Master of Mankind, Saturnine, Warhawk, Echoes of Eternity!

 

I would say all if those can hold their own against anything BL has ever put out!