Voidscarred by Mike Brooks

[The Scorpion]

I just finished this book and I have a few thoughts.

it is a book I liked, so let's get the negatives out of the way: this book, much like the one about Lelith Hesperax by the same author suffers painfully from "telling" stuff as a blunt statement instead of letting things be "shown". It is a problem most glaring at the beginning, but never quite ends up disappearing. I imagine Mike was concerned with (and rightfully so) fulfilling a checklist of other things that the novel needed to have and so let this escape his attention. Either the editor failed to see it, or it was left on purpose to let the book be an easy introduction to the Eldar, since it is a bit more than just about Corsairs.

Now, if the prose is serviceable but not spectacular, what makes the book good?
It is hard to explain, but I guess the book sets out to do exactly what it is supposed to do, and then hastily throws some tasty spice along the way.

The plot is simple at the beginning yet gains a surprising depth about 1/3rd into the novel without becoming complicated: it is more about dilemmas and meaning, and personal principle.

The characters punch above their weight imho.
We have a Corsair baron, dancing between pragmatism and principle, between bravado and insecurity, between indulging in schadenfreude and moving on from past wrongs.
We have a recent Craftworld exile, torn between personal desires and greater duty, trying to find himself without losing himself.
We have their rivals, their friends and companions, not always as nuanced but with clear goals and motivations.
Some minor characters get amazing characterization, such as the Farseer responsible for exiling the main characters. The book is about Corsairs, but it acknowledges that things are not as simple as "Craftworld councils are senile, they'd rather sit on their ass and play it safe than do something while Aeldari slowly go extinct".
I like that with the Eldar characters, Brooks takes the time to go into their psyche, since they are supposed to feel more profundly and more richly than a human does. Every now and then, some of their thoughts are overly romantic, idealistic, morbid, self-indulgent, or slighly perverse, and that is great.

Speaking of characters, Brooks pulled his best card for the antagonists: Orks.
Greenskins are often generic antagonists but say what you want about Brooks the man sure knows how to write Orks, and the Ork POV was one of my faves.
Every POV was a great reminder that while Orks have hopes and dreams and fears, the things they value or consider important is so much different to that of the other races in 40k. In this case, we follow a Mek and his struggle in dealing with a Freeboter Kaptin that is not as patient, as generous with scrap piles, or as tolerant with explosions (specifically with how local they are) as a Mek might want a Boss to be.

All in all. I liked this one. My main concern, which was Eldar characters feeling too human, was mostly avoided. Many characters, including random ones, had a pleasantly surprising depth, and da ladz are always fun to watch. Barely any human stuff in it too. By and large this book takes place in the galaxy outside of the Imperium, which helps the setting feel wide.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I recently read this. It was OK. I thought his Ork books were stronger. I never really engaged with any of the characters like I did with Ufthawk. One thing I didn't appreciate was Brooks letting his politics spill over into his writing. A hobby is to escape reality. 

 

In any case, having learned about what sort of person Brooks is like irl I will never be buying one of his books again on principle. 

[SteveAntilles]

6 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

In any case, having learned about what sort of person Brooks is like irl I will never be buying one of his books again on principle. 

Is there some kind of controversy?

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

@SteveAntilles I'm not sure what i can say because of the mods. Long story short, Brooks has advocated for political violence against those who don't share his far left views.

[TheVoidDragon]

Sounds like quite an interesting book, even if not something outright amazing. Might have to get it when it eventually show up in paperback. Eldar Corsairs aren't something I expected would get a novel so it's great to see GW branching out with story ideas a bit more. 

 

14 hours ago, SteveAntilles said:

Is there some kind of controversy?

 

From what I've seen he simply re-posted a comment, which some are eager to vilify him for because it wasn't something that agrees with their political alignment. A few youtube grifters and others have been trying to make out it was some egregious thing by claiming it's something it wasn't.

Edited 12 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

Link to comment?

[wecanhaveallthree]

I have delved deep into the bowels of the internet and unearthed https://spikeybits.com/concern-regarding-a-gw-employees-political-comments/ - I make no comment on the substance of the article, the allegations, etc., but this appears to be legitimate. Up to you if it matters or not. I respect Inwit's position: if an author stands for something you don't like, you're not obliged to support them. This isn't the forum to discuss the reasons for that, I'm pretty sure, but I think it's a legitimate critique to raise (and then move the discussion along).

 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

Hmm. Noted.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

3 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

From what I've seen he simply re-posted a comment, which some are eager to vilify him for because it wasn't something that agrees with their political alignment. A few youtube grifters and others have been trying to make out it was some egregious thing by claiming it's something it wasn't.

 

Right. Let's just pretend "Sarkon Aggad" never happened and that fantasizing about the deaths of one's political opponents is a completely alien concept to poor, misunderstood Mikey,

 

A reputable company would have fired him for that stunt and not had to worry about anything he said or retweeted in 2025.

[The Scorpion]

That is sad to hear, but not unsurprising in our day and age.

 

I have always been an advocate of separating art from artist though

 

I won't be boycotting Brooks as long as what he writes continues to be solid enough

[TheVoidDragon]

39 minutes ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

A reputable company would have fired him for that stunt and not had to worry about anything he said or retweeted in 2025.

 

First I've heard of that. It's does seem quite strange to name the novels villain in that way, but I'm not sure it's something anyone should have been "fired for".

 

But regardless, that doesn't mean that this situation is what you're trying to claim it is.

Edited 8 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[darkhorse0607]

Poor Scorpion just wanted to talk about a novel

[1ncarnadine]

If anything, drawing attention to this book in this way is going to create a Streisand Effect. I was happy to skip this one until the culture warriors got upset, but now I'll give it a shot to form my own opinions.

 

Now that I know there's Aeldari romance, I'm interested to see how the corsairs compare to the Craftworld perspective in the Rogue Trader game.

[Fedor]

2 hours ago, wecanhaveallthree said:

I have delved deep into the bowels of the internet and unearthed https://spikeybits.com/concern-regarding-a-gw-employees-political-comments/ - I make no comment on the substance of the article, the allegations, etc., but this appears to be legitimate. Up to you if it matters or not. I respect Inwit's position: if an author stands for something you don't like, you're not obliged to support them. This isn't the forum to discuss the reasons for that, I'm pretty sure, but I think it's a legitimate critique to raise (and then move the discussion along).

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm missing other stuff that he said, but the comment posted in this article does not seem to fit in with the others, nor is it doing what the Spikeybits article says it is.

 

He's agreeing political violence is bad, but merely thinks it should also be highlighted by the Dems that (in his opinion) the current president and his party/supporters have enabled an environment that has led to it.

 

A perfectly reasonable opinion, even if someone disagrees.

[The Scorpion]

If I ever write books, I will abstain from making any political comments on interviews and limit myself to subtly hamfist a preachy mesage down the reader's throat like a gentleman

1 hour ago, darkhorse0607 said:

Poor Scorpion just wanted to talk about a novel

 

Edited 6 hours ago by The Scorpion

[Scribe]

24 minutes ago, Fedor said:

He's agreeing political violence is bad, but merely thinks it should also be highlighted by the Dems that (in his opinion) the current president and his party/supporters have enabled an environment that has led to it.

 

I mean we can read the tea leaves on a retweet/like or whatever, but down that road is madness.

 

I dont know how old the guy is, I dont really care, but the fact of the matter is "Dems" "Republicans" "Libs" "Cons" is all a smoke screen for the real issues, and the real powers.

 

Just like 40K, there is no good guy, and most of us figure that out eventually.

[wecanhaveallthree]

Quote

Right. Let's just pretend "Sarkon Aggad" never happened and that fantasizing about the deaths of one's political opponents is a completely alien concept to poor, misunderstood Mikey,

 

A tale literally as old as time, unless one considers the Epic of Gilgamesh a completely factual historical record and not 'I am so great, my enemies are so lame' fanfiction (as based as it was). Authors, artists, playwrights, poets, etc. have been putting people they don't like or disagree with in their art and having bad things happen to them since forever. It's fiction: it might be distasteful, lowbrow, whatever, but it's hardly a call to action.

 

Quote

it's just a retweet bro

 

On the other hand, I see this around a lot of discourse, and it frustrates me to no end. If you are reposting/retweeting something, you are making those words your own. You are endorsing that view. Throw a stone and you'll find a bunch of defamation cases where 'but it was just a retweet heehee' got the defendant suplexed for aggravated damages. I get that it's a 'thing' to do in the current age, but if you're not making any commentary yourself, then your repost/share/retweet is the comment.

 

Quote

He's agreeing political violence is bad,

 

Let me stress that this isn't my circus and these aren't my monkeys, but this is not the substance at all. The post Brooks retweets is in relation to the shooting of an American political pundit by someone who (allegedly - the trial is ongoing) disagreed with his political views. It specifically does not say that 'political violence is bad', but rather, the pundit and their political affiliates brought it upon themselves (or, in their words, 'creat[ed] conditions ripe for political violence'). Effectively, that if the pundit wasn't 'dressed' (speaking) so provocatively, they wouldn't have been shot.

 

This should not be sugar-coated. It is a reprehensible statement to make. It is a reprehensible comment to endorse. If that matters to you as a supporter of Brooks' work or his publisher, you should be aware of it. I'm personally of the opinion that people say dumb things all the time, having vast personal experience in this subject (see: my comment history), and what dumb things they say have very little, if any, impact on their merits as author, artist, playwright, poet, etc. 

 

I'll continue to read Brooks' work, because I like his work and his roguish counter-culture style is - as Scribe says - in the very DNA of the setting. I like his exploration of relationships and taboo. He does good character work. As an author, he has a lot of positives. I wasn't going to pick up Voidscarred because it's not Braden Campbell and it's not Mistress Baeda's Gift 2.0 but that's not entirely Brooks' fault. 

Edited 1 hour ago by wecanhaveallthree
more like mistress baeda's grift heh heh heh