Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:

Lynata wrote:Not that there actually was something shocking about that novel. A CSM says he wants to kill a bunch of kids. Not only is it not described in detail, it clearly doesn't happen at all. What's the big deal?

It's not a big deal at all. The only thing shocking about it is that a published novelist wrote such tripe in the first place. The image serves no purpose except to show that the CSM are EEEEEEVIL mua hahahaha! Jumping straight to killing kids for the sake of this is in poor taste -- but, more importantly, it is gakky writing.

So you have never read any fluff about chaos marines ever? Killing for pleasure is kind of their thing. It would be like writing about a Dark Eldar raiding party that doesn't take back any slaves because they think it would just be a bit to cliched to do so.

Just so you know the scene in question isn't graphic at all, you would find far more graphic images of children in distress in Grimm's Fairy tales.

Manchu wrote:That's not a good reason. It contributes nothing. It'd be like describing exterminatus with a scene of a toddler being eaten alive by the Life-Eater Virus.

And what is wrong with writing about that, highlighting the total disregard of singular life the officials have when it comes to ordering an exterminus, it could be used to show a person on the breaking point as he watches that scene knowing he has saved billions but has to live know he killed that child.

You seem to be deluding yourself that all literature has to fit into your neat box of what is acceptable and what isn't, children are a part of humanity and play a major part in the lives and thoughts of most humans, so being able to only show children in books with big smiles and skipping around 'contributes nothing' to the form.

Hyd, OverwatchCNC, BeRzErKeR: It's nothing personal -- certainly less personal than being accused of preaching or riding my high horse to the crusade. But there does seem to be a critical failure here -- and I concede that it could be on my part. Therefore, let me restate the argument that I've been making the entire time.

The scene involves children either

(1) to tell us about Fenris or

(2) to tell us about the CSM.

So how does it stack up?

(1) "Even the children of Fenris fight." Yes, this is explicitly conveyed because the children do indeed fight back. But does this tie into the rest of the book? Nope. We have never met thesse children (who are just called "children") or any others in this or any other SW novel. Who they are or what they might be doing there is something that a fluff-connoisseur could puzzle out but would not be apparent even to someone who had memorized the fluff contained in the SW codex. So while we can draw an inference about Fenrisian culture here it's a pretty weak one and doesn't have much (or anything really) to do with the story at hand.

(2) "CSM are really bad guys." And now we know this because only really bad guys would attack kids. You could rephrase this, as Kanluwen has, with the statement "look how far the 1ksons have fallen" but that's just rephrasing it -- the message remails "CSM are really bad guys."

Considering that these children exist in this book only in this scene, I'd say it stands to reason whatever message you could glean about Fenris was merely incidental in contrast to the clear message that CSM are child-torturing bad guys.

So ... is this appropriate? If not, on what grounds?

Just on aesthetic grounds (this is where you guys seem to be confused) I think that we can agree that portraying a child as the victim of torture, rape, or murder is pretty extreme. That's "turning it all the way to 11" as they say. As an author, I'd think you'd want to use something like this to make a really important point. The question is: how important is the point that CSM are bad guys? Well, it's important no doubt BUT it is a basic premise of the story already. Thus this scene is merely reiterating something you already know. There is a problem of proportionality here. The author is using a startling image to make a mundane point.

Now the argument comes around that this is necessary to "realistically" portray the horror of war. That would be fine if a realistic portrayal of war was the goal of any BL book. At most, BL authors strive for suspension of disbelief -- they are not writing "realistic" stories. The Warhammer 40k world does not in any way, shape, or form approach a realistic perception of anything -- including war and its horror.

It's funny that people have mentioned that Ratius should not read stories about real war since he doesn't like this. But that misses the point. Ratius may be fine with all sorts of gore or shocking images in other contexts and only find it stylistically inappropriate for a novel based on a table top game marketed primarily to pre-teens. Well, whatever Ratius's position is, this is how I look at it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@BluntmanDC: There's a lot of thread here that I don't think you've read. I've addressed most of your post on pages 2 - 3.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Lynata wrote:Not that there actually was something shocking about that novel. A CSM says he wants to kill a bunch of kids. Not only is it not described in detail, it clearly doesn't happen at all. What's the big deal?

It's not a big deal at all. The only thing shocking about it is that a published novelist wrote such tripe in the first place. The image serves no purpose except to show that the CSM are EEEEEEVIL mua hahahaha! Jumping straight to killing kids for the sake of this is in poor taste -- but, more importantly, it is gakky writing.

So you have never read any fluff about chaos marines ever? Killing for pleasure is kind of their thing. It would be like writing about a Dark Eldar raiding party that doesn't take back any slaves because they think it would just be a bit to cliched to do so.

Just so you know the scene in question isn't graphic at all, you would find far more graphic images of children in distress in Grimm's Fairy tales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

BluntmanDC wrote:

Manchu wrote:That's not a good reason. It contributes nothing. It'd be like describing exterminatus with a scene of a toddler being eaten alive by the Life-Eater Virus.

And what is wrong with writing about that, highlighting the total disregard of singular life the officials have when it comes to ordering an exterminus, it could be used to show a person on the breaking point as he watches that scene knowing he has saved billions but has to live know he killed that child.

You seem to be deluding yourself that all literature has to fit into your neat box of what is acceptable and what isn't, children are a part of humanity and play a major part in the lives and thoughts of most humans, so being able to only show children in books with big smiles and skipping around 'contributes nothing' to the form.

You clearly have a different perception of literature to myself (and I'm assuming the OP).
Horus Heresy books are supposed to be a pretty light-hearted series about death and destruction, yadayada.
Having a bit in it about violence towards children is completely out of tone with the rest of the series.
This isn't one of those sob-story novels about child abuse that are inexplicably popular with readers of the The Times, it's a grimdark pew-pew fest.

Manchu wrote:The question is: how important is the point that CSM are bad guys? Well, it's important no doubt BUT it is a basic premise of the story already. Thus this scene is merely reiterating something you already know. There is a problem of proportionality here. The author is using a startling image to make a mundane point.

But then isn't every Black Library book something we already know about in most circumstances? Space marines fight in wars, Horus became a bad man etc. Isn't the point of the novels too expand and flesh out what we already know?

I see your point Manchu ser, but I am a person that would personally like to see more in depth versions of the Grim Darkness that is the 41st Millennium. I don't think I am sick or twisted, I just like a bit more realism, well, as much realism as you can get from a fantasy game.

And on the Battle of the Fang itself:

It is M32, a thousand years after the Horus Heresy. The Scouring is over and the Imperium at the height of its post-Crusade power.

Though a single Scout ship survives to summon Great Wolf Harek Ironhelm back to Fenris, none of the defenders truly realise the full scale the horror that awaits them, nor what the Battle for the Fang will cost them all.

It is not a heresy book.

Hold on, no one is saying you are sick and twisted. Here again we have a confusion between moral and aesthetic judgments. If you think that violence against children belongs in light fantasy/sci-fi novels then I might say you have bad taste but that is different from saying you are a bad person.

Joey wrote:You clearly have a different perception of literature to myself (and I'm assuming the OP).
Horus Heresy books are supposed to be a pretty light-hearted series about death and destruction, yadayada.
Having a bit in it about violence towards children is completely out of tone with the rest of the series.
This isn't one of those sob-story novels about child abuse that are inexplicably popular with readers of the The Times, it's a grimdark pew-pew fest.

I'm sorry that i believe that literature of any sort, including 'pew-pew fests' can have actual integrety. I really don't understand why people say its okay to read a story about MEN being ripped apart, shot, flamered, blugened and all sorts of killed, but as soon as someone says an overtly dark character would kill a child (a child that has grown up on a death world and in nearly all cases could kill a man) you think its a step to far.

Its not much of a moral high ground if you a standing on the corpses of men (because its fine to kill a man, because they are worth less than women and children).

What can I say, BluntmanDC, if you think that violence against grown men is the equivalent of violence against children ...

... we'll have to agree to disagree.

Manchu wrote:Hold on, no one is saying you are sick and twisted. Here again we have a confusion between moral and aesthetic judgments. If you think that violence against children belongs in light fantasy/sci-fi novels then I might say you have bad taste but that is different from saying you are a bad person.

No I wasn't saying they were, poor choice of words possibly on my behalf, just iterating that I don't think it's such a bad thing. Some people though might think that it doesn't belong in a fantasy book and that because I do think it has a place, would make me so. We understand the setting and we know what CSMs are like and it seemed entirely feasible to me that it is something that one would think. If we are already aware of how evil they are, why not put it in?

Perhaps there should be a more mature novel line for kiddy bashing and kitten flaying? Slaves to Darkness had a warning on it if I recall.

Manchu wrote:What can I say, BluntmanDC, if you think that violence against grown men is the equivalent of violence against children ...

... we'll have to agree to disagree.

Is the difference that one can defend themselves while the other cannot? because if that is your belief, it fallsa pretty flat on it's arse seeing as Fenrisian children (to what the scene refers to) are more than capable of defending themselves and would be more than a nmatch to most grown men in the IoM.

If you read what i wrote i would think it would be quite easy to determine that i believe that everyone has the same right not be subjected to violence.

"Right to not be subjected to violence"?

Way off point there, BDC.

I'm not talking about who the prospective target of real-life violence might be in some sort of moral hypothetical. I'm talking about a scene in a story book that involves hurting a child versus a scene in a story book that involve hurting a grown man who is also an elite soldier.

All of your post is quite true, and I agree with it all; with one exception.

Manchu wrote:That would be fine if a realistic portrayal of war was the goal of any BL book. At most, BL authors strive for suspension of disbelief -- they are not writing "realistic" stories. The Warhammer 40k world does not in any way, shape, or form approach a realistic perception of anything -- including war and its horror.

This is true to an extent, but it doesn't have to be ENTIRELY true. Yes, we're massively suspending disbelief here; we're discussing genetically engineered super-soldiers armed with grenade launcher submachine guns and power armor suits fighting against the same thing but evul. . . in space. But that doesn't necessarily mean that SOME things cannot be portrayed realistically.

One of the key points of 40k, however much satire, strange British humor, and dramatic good-guy-always-wins heroism there is, has always been that, well. . . it sucks. It really, really is a terrible time and place to be alive. The best you can possibly hope for is merely to be oppressed and controlled your entire life, and you can't even really make a good argument against that because all the alternatives are far, far worse. And even when the 'good guys' do win, for one thing they're so evil and callous that in any other setting they would indisputably be the villains, and for another they usually win only at a horrific cost in life.

The setting of the universe can be used, as it can in all good fiction, to hold up a mirror to the real world. In good 40k fiction, that mirror shows what true desperation is. It shows what people can do when they must, and what someone means when they say 'the ends justify the means', or 'God will know his own'. it shows what evil is, and how even generally-good people can commit it when they feel backed into a corner. And it can also show actual heroism; people who are faced with the same set of bad options, and manage not to become hardened or soulless. People who manage to, most of the time, choose to do the RIGHT thing when faced with only wrong choices.

And for that purpose, gruesome and realistic depictions of the consequences of war are excellent. The setting may be cartoony and demand suspension of disbelief; the people, the characters, need not be.

I'm not saying that this particular passage is an example; it's not. It's merely an example of cartoonish villainy; we don't care about the characters who are threatened or in fact the character doing the threatening. There's no pathos, no emotional connection to the words on the page. But I am saying that such examples do exist, and categorically dismissing the 'realism' argument because these characters fight in space with futuristic explosives instead of in France with rifles, or in Iraq with machine guns, is a faulty way to view the story as a medium of art.

But I am saying that such examples do exist, and categorically dismissing the 'realism' argument because these characters fight in space with futuristic explosives instead of in France with rifles, or in Iraq with machine guns, is a faulty way to view the story as a medium of art.

What I am getting at, have been getting, have said so many times and has yet to make it through, is that you can have depth, you can have interesting characterization, you can have theme and reflection, you can have drama, you can have it all -- and you never even once have to mention violence against children.

I think you'll find I've even said in this thread (page 2, I think?) that a depiction of violence against children could even be done well in a 40k book and thus be appropriate. But this idea that using violence against children wherever for whatever purpose (not what you are arguing, obviously, but close to what others have said) is a non-issue because, after all, in the grime darkness of the future there is only war ... it's just stupid. The marketing premise of 40k cannot be a justification for putting whatever tripe is easiest to dream up in a BL novel.

What I said on page 2:

Manchu wrote:I'll concede that it's possible that a scene like this could actually be relevant to the story and well-done. It's not this scene, however, and I don't think there really needs to be one in order for me to "buy into" the 40k world being awful. I maintain that "grim darkness" is never a justification for using certain images.

Manchu wrote: What I am getting at, have been getting, have said so many times and has yet to make it through, is that you can have depth, you can have interesting characterization, you can have theme and reflection, you can have drama, you can have it all -- and you never even once have to mention violence against children.

That's true. You can also do it BY mentioning violence against children, and there isn't inherently anything wrong with that; it's easy to do badly (VERY easy!) and not appropriate in most contexts, but that doesn't mean that it's always off-limits. As I mentioned earlier, a couple of places in the Lord of the Rings have the orcs discussing the pros and cons of eating their prisoners alive in fairly explicit terms, which I would put on about an equivalent level of squick-factor. This scene, here, does not appear to be either well done or appropriate in context, however.

Manchu wrote: But this idea that using violence against children wherever for whatever purpose (not what you are arguing, obviously, but close to what others have said) is a non-issue because, after all, in the grime darkness of the future there is only war ... it's just stupid. The marketing premise of 40k cannot be a justification for putting whatever tripe is easiest to dream up in a BL novel.

What I said on page 2:

Manchu wrote:I'll concede that it's possible that a scene like this could actually be relevant to the story and well-done. It's not this scene, however, and I don't think there really needs to be one in order for me to "buy into" the 40k world being awful. I maintain that "grim darkness" is never a justification for using certain images.

There, we're certainly in agreement. There are justifications for using disturbing or explicit scenes (The Godfather did it quite well, for instance) but if you want to use them simply to create a general aura of horror, then you either have to do them VERY well and naturally, or you should be using something else. Shock can be a useful and valuable literary technique, but it shouldn't just be thrown in for the sake of being shocking.

Manchu wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Panopticon wrote:Kanluwen, the examples you gave are exactly the examples I used as good uses of children in 40k, they served a purpose to the plot and weren't just in danger to show how scary CSM are.

That's an enitirely different argument. You're saying it's ok to endanger and kill children as long as its done well. His writing skills offend you, not the morality of it.

That's what's been said all along, actually. Various other posters have tried to make this about some kind of moral issue but the real problem is that it's disproportionate, shows poor taste, and a lack of skill. It's cookie cutter crap and it's exactly why BL has a poor reputation.

I wasn't going to say anything but that wasn't what you were arguing. Just previous you were claiming that children only exist "abstractually" in 40K but had that arguement crushed under the boots of Cadia's endless child armies. Then you switched gears and claimed that it was because of shoddy writing.

I think the problem is that you seem to think 40K and BL are PG-13 but it is rated R.

KC, there have been a lot of arguments made that I've addressed and the two you're talking about are not mutually exclusive but neither do they rely upon one another. You have not followed this thread closely enough to make that criticism. Please see my very first post in this thread to see that I have always been criticizing this as shoddy writing. I spoke to the lack of children in 40k because Kanluwen insisted 40k is all about kids. There are kids in the 40k universe, yes. There is a youth army on Cadia, yes. There are not models of eviscerated children to use as Chaos objective markers, however. There is no entry in the IG codex for child soldiers or a novel featuring them. The fact is that children are not a part of the franchise even if they exist in the setting. The "setting" is not a real universe that exists independently from ours. It may be extensive, it may be populated with all sorts of detail but it's not reality or an alternative reality. It's a vehicle for story telling and model selling. Just because children exist in that world doesn't mean that they need to be featured in a codex or a novel, etc.

As to your other misapprehension:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think the problem is that you seem to think 40K and BL are PG-13 but it is rated R.

Manchu wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:This is not a youth friendly setting, it is intended for adults ...

In addition to being beside the point, that's simply wrong. Pick up any BL paperback you have and flip to the back page. You will find an advertisement for Warhammer40k. The picture shows two pre-teens.

Manchu wrote:KC, there have been a lot of arguments made that I've addressed and the two you're talking about are not mutually exclusive but neither do they rely upon one another. You have not followed this thread closely enough to make that criticism. Please see my very first post in this thread to see that I have always been criticizing this as shoddy writing. I spoke to the lack of children in 40k because Kanluwen insisted 40k is all about kids. There are kids in the 40k universe, yes. There is a youth army on Cadia, yes. There are not models of eviscerated children to use as Chaos objective markers, however. There is no entry in the IG codex for child soldiers or a novel featuring them. The fact is that children are not a part of the franchise even if they exist in the setting. The "setting" is not a real universe that exists independently from ours. It may be extensive, it may be populated with all sorts of detail but it's not reality or an alternative reality. It's a vehicle for story telling and model selling. Just because children exist in that world doesn't mean that they need to be featured in a codex or a novel, etc.

As to your other misapprehension:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think the problem is that you seem to think 40K and BL are PG-13 but it is rated R.

Manchu wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:This is not a youth friendly setting, it is intended for adults ...

In addition to being beside the point, that's simply wrong. Pick up any BL paperback you have and flip to the back page. You will find an advertisement for Warhammer40k. The picture shows two pre-teens.

Way back in the day when I forst got into 40K (and was a teenager) I remember a family checking out a Games Workshop as they often do. The red shirt was explaining how it was a great hobby for her 8-9 year old and she was buying it. She also noticed there's a lot of books there and mentioned how it also probably be pretty good at getting them into reading. He paused and said "well....actually the material is probably a little too dark for kids." He was right, and I'm glad he was honest like that. Besides the violence I find the non-stop fascist imperial propaganda seems to warped the morality of an entire generation of dakkanauts too.

Anyways, for me it was Necropolis. I read it when it originally came out. I still recall the scene were a ghost gets his genitalia blown off by a las-bolt. As he lay dieing Dorden tries to tie off the groinal artery but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) he dies with his hand still in the cavity. I had to stop reading there for second and all I thought was "wow, this is not for kids."

To whatever degree Dakkanauts are warped, I wouldn't blame it on GW.

Manchu wrote:To whatever degree Dakkanauts are warped, I wouldn't blame it on GW.

Well it warped my mind. And I blame GW! Death to those dissimiliar to me!!!!

Hmm, maybe it's true in your case ...

Manchu wrote:KC, there have been a lot of arguments made that I've addressed and the two you're talking about are not mutually exclusive but neither do they rely upon one another. You have not followed this thread closely enough to make that criticism. Please see my very first post in this thread to see that I have always been criticizing this as shoddy writing.

And then you immediately followed it up with the idea that this is "shoddy writing" because it's "explicit". Shoddy writing does not necessarily equate explicit writing, and vice versa.

I spoke to the lack of children in 40k because Kanluwen insisted 40k is all about kids.

What? I must have been typing in my sleep, because I don't think I've ever once said anything amounting to that.

There are kids in the 40k universe, yes. There is a youth army on Cadia, yes.

There's youth armies on many worlds. Krieg, Catachan, and Cadia are the "big ones" however as they are spotlight regiments, so to speak.

There are not models of eviscerated children to use as Chaos objective markers, however.

So? There are not models of beheaded traitors for Guard armies to use as objective markers either. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is no entry in the IG codex for child soldiers or a novel featuring them.

The IG codex entry for "Conscript Platoons" includes the Cadian Youth Army units which accompany Cadian Shock Troop Regiments into war, so that's not true. The novel "Cadian Blood" features a Youth Army platoon--led by a 14 or 15 year old.

The fact is that children are not a part of the franchise even if they exist in the setting. The "setting" is not a real universe that exists independently from ours. It may be extensive, it may be populated with all sorts of detail but it's not reality or an alternative reality. It's a vehicle for story telling and model selling. Just because children exist in that world doesn't mean that they need to be featured in a codex or a novel, etc.

I disagree with this, wholeheartedly.

The books should not be simply a "model selling" vehicle. The better ones do tell a story--and part of that story will be the world at large. I don't see you getting upset about Abnett having a drugged out child in the "Ravenor" books, and having that child be taken by Ravenor.

As to your other misapprehension:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I think the problem is that you seem to think 40K and BL are PG-13 but it is rated R.

Manchu wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:This is not a youth friendly setting, it is intended for adults ...

In addition to being beside the point, that's simply wrong. Pick up any BL paperback you have and flip to the back page. You will find an advertisement for Warhammer40k. The picture shows two pre-teens.

It shows two people who could be anywhere from 8 to 15 years old. When I was 16, I was no taller than the short kid in the picture.

Kanluwen wrote:The books should not be simply a "model selling" vehicle. The better ones do tell a story--and part of that story will be the world at large.

It's a good thing I said they were story-telling as well as model-selling vehicles.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't see you getting upset about Abnett having a drugged out child in the "Ravenor" books, and having that child be taken by Ravenor.

Follow the thread and you'll understand why.

Kanluwen wrote:It shows two people who could be anywhere from 8 to 15 years old.

"Rated R: Under 17 not admitted without parent or adult guardian."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:And then you immediately followed it up with the idea that this is "shoddy writing" because it's "explicit". Shoddy writing does not necessarily equate explicit writing, and vice versa

If this is really all you've gotten out of what seems like endless reiteration and clarification then I have no more words for you.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The books should not be simply a "model selling" vehicle. The better ones do tell a story--and part of that story will be the world at large.

It's a good thing I said they were story-telling as well as model-selling vehicles.

Which is why I stated "better ones". There's plenty of bad ones which are released alongside models and exist as nothing but drivel attempting to sell a model.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't see you getting upset about Abnett having a drugged out child in the "Ravenor" books, and having that child be taken by Ravenor.

Follow the thread and you'll understand why.

Read the book and you'll understand your complaint is baseless.

Kanluwen wrote:It shows two people who could be anywhere from 8 to 15 years old.

"Rated R: Under 17 not admitted without parent or adult guardian."

How many theaters near you card for R rated movies?

Kanluwen wrote:And then you immediately followed it up with the idea that this is "shoddy writing" because it's "explicit". Shoddy writing does not necessarily equate explicit writing, and vice versa

If this is really all you've gotten out of what seems like endless reiteration and clarification then I have no more words for you.

No, I've gotten plenty. But your "reiteration and clarification" all keeps waffling between moral and literary justifications.

Make no mistake. It was a jarring thing to see in the book. But when one puts it into context, it's practically nothing. Fenris is a world which is kept at an artificial state of barbarism to be used as a recruiting ground for the Space Wolves. Children die everyday on the planet, torn to shreds by wolves the size of tanks, the elements themselves, starvation, monsters, or even killed in tribal feuds.

The children on the Fang, however are spared from those potential grisly deaths. Yet this book illustrates that they're not soft. They're willing to take up arms and fight those invading their home.

There is no waffling. If you can find it, by all means post it. I've made the same argument throughout the thread, conceding on only one point (back on page 2) that while scenes with children were never necessary they could be, if handled well, appropriate for a 40k novel.

This book is not an example of that, however.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I thought it was damn well done and perfectly fitting the tone of the book.

I can't make you not like something you like and I don't even want to do that. I can make it clear that your opinion is not the only valid one, however, nor even the most reasonable one.

I don't think Ratius was being oversensitive to pause on it, either--at least not in terms of expecting more, especially in the post-Soul Hunter world of BL publishing. If Chris Wraight wants to give us greater detail on Fenris then by all means he should -- this passage didn't do it. It didn't make Chaos more scary. It didn't give me a deeper look into any character or into the Thousand Sons (except inasmuch as it doesn't really fit the 1ksons MO, which is bad but a completely different topic). So, in short, it didn't accomplish anything of significance -- although it could have potentially achieved any of these things.

But (again, as I've already said) this doesn't mean the whole book is gak or that Chris Wraight is gak. The thread is just about one scene and that one scene is bad.

Manchu wrote:Hmm, maybe it's true in your case ...

Anyways, time for another Kamikaze anecdote. One I know you'll understand Manchu. I was in the comic book depository the other day and similiar situation. A family was looking to buy their 8-year old his first comic. The shop owner who knows his stuff (after a lot of pointing at stuff by the kid) said that basically Superman comics would be ok for someone his age but not Batman. I thought to myself: he's right but that's kinda weird. They're both iconic characters from the same publisher that share a universe and even a few titles. It would be really hard for a parent to know that. Superman tends to almost always be ok for all ages but I'm reading the newest Batman and like this guy cuts of a guy's face then like stitiches it to another guys face....

I think in a way Space Marine books tend to be like Superman books and Guard books tend to be more like Batman. That being said generally SM books are still more violent than Superman and Guard than Batman.

I'm not really afraid that little kids will read BL novels and be scared. I just don't like bad writing.

We should all be afraid of bad writing but laser castration and back room face transplants are not for kids.

Manchu wrote:
I don't think Ratius was being oversensitive to pause on it, either--at least not in terms of expecting more, especially in the post-Soul Hunter world of BL publishing. If Chris Wraight wants to give us greater detail on Fenris then by all means he should -- this passage didn't do it.

Because this isn't Fenris. The Fang is not Fenris.

It's located on Fenris, but the Astartes are the only ones who interact with Fenris. The Serfs live in the Fang and its ships.

It didn't make Chaos more scary. It didn't give me a deeper look into any character or into the Thousand Sons (except inasmuch as it doesn't really fit the 1ksons MO, which is bad but a completely different topic).

What MO? The Thousand Sons have no MO. They're walking dustbins, for the most part. The only people who aren't are sorcerers in service to the Ruinous Powers.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or a jerk here Manchu. But put this into context:
This book is set at a time where things are still winding down from the biggest conflict in the Imperium's history. The Thousand Sons have just had a large portion of their numbers turned into mindless automatons and their world razed around them. All they have left is dust and shadows of glory.

They've turned from warrior-scholars to power-hungry seekers of dark knowledge. Their first act is to try to repay, in kind, the Wolves with what they visited upon Prospero. The Wolves are not AT the Fang in large numbers. Most of the Wolves are still pursuing traitors after the Battle of Terra, and Russ has vanished into the Eye of Terror.

When you consider it like this, the fact that the serfs (and their bloodlines) were fighting is perfectly acceptable and to leave out that fact is doing the serfs a grave disservice. It's like "Blood Reaver". Talos and First Claw spend most of their time rampaging through a fortress-monastery fighting serfs of the Chapter.
ADB could have just left that out. So why didn't he?

Because the fortress monasteries of the Chapters aren't just places where the Astartes hang up their hats. They're centers of learning and war, home to the Chapters' devoted followers and those under their protection.

Couldn't it have just as easily been adult serfs if it was about the serfs?