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.

@skrulnik: I don't think either the novel or audiobook (haven't read the short story) give any impression that the rest of the NLs are different from Talos. If anything the, the end of Throne of Lies gives the opposite impression. In any case, none of the main characters seem representative of the NLs. I would have the same complaint about a SW series where all the characters are prissy and fastidiously neat.

Manchu wrote:@skrulnik: I don't think either the novel or audiobook (haven't read the short story) give any impression that the rest of the NLs are different from Talos. If anything the, the end of Throne of Lies gives the opposite impression. In any case, none of the main characters seem representative of the NLs. I would have the same complaint about a SW series where all the characters are prissy and fastidiously neat.

Not to hijack the thread, but would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Manchu wrote:I fyou lie Abnett the you will like Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

You better be right!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Valkyrie wrote:Still reading through the series, I'm at Descent of Angels so far, and although I enjoyed Fulgrim I felt it had some small flaws to it.

Spoiler:

1: I felt that they could have extended the Drop Site Massacre a bit. Seriously, the most important part of the heresy and it's over within a dozen pages. I was expecting an entire chapter devoted to the betrayal part alone, althought the duel between Ferrus and Fulgrim was very enjoyable to read.

2: I thought Fulgrim's degredation came from the Anathame, not the Laer blade he recovered.


However, I thought they idea of the self-harming artist slowly degrading and her work becoming more and more grotesque was very interesting.

All in all, I thought it was a good read. Not as good as Galaxy in Flames but one of the more enjoyable ones.

I totally agree about the Drop-Site massacre. One could argue its the most important event in 40K history yet it seems like they just glossed over it.
I think Fulgrim is actually one of the longest books in the HH and i guess they had to wrap it up but I don't know, perhaps the Massacre could have had its own book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rascon wrote:

Manchu wrote:@skrulnik: I don't think either the novel or audiobook (haven't read the short story) give any impression that the rest of the NLs are different from Talos. If anything the, the end of Throne of Lies gives the opposite impression. In any case, none of the main characters seem representative of the NLs. I would have the same complaint about a SW series where all the characters are prissy and fastidiously neat.

Not to hijack the thread, but would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Actually Ragnar Blackmane is one of the most, thoughtful introspective characters I've read about in the BL. I remember him having an existential crisis about relativism which is decreed a sin by The Emperor.
That wacky Barbarian.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Actually Ragnar Blackmane is one of the most, thoughtful introspective characters I've read about in the BL. I remember him having an existential crisis about relativism which is decreed a sin by The Emperor.
That wacky Barbarian.

Ha, really? I may have to revise my opinion that a Space Wolf would stare at a book in utter incomprehension for several long moments before putting a bolt through it out of fear it might attack him.

Ragnar Blackmane is two thick and ugly hairs away from being a Berzerker, and that's pretty much the only fact that we come away with upon reading about his ordeal at the Gates of Morkai in Space Wolf.

Besides, aside from the incessant bloodshed and mindless slaughter, Orthodox Khornism is an ancient and revered religion that also calls its adherents to observe the virtues of hard work and honesty. Off the battlefield many Berzerkers like to pursue such hobbies as writing samizdat and war poetry. Killing, maiming, and burning are popular topics, though Kharn the Betrayer's epic "Kill! Maim! Burn!" continues to top the charts in both the abriged pocketbook version, and the full iron-bound war-tome with close combat attachment.

Rascon wrote:would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Wise SW who express themselves in mystical terms are okay. SW that are debating Heideggar's concerns about technology are problematic. So, to get to what you're actually asking, NL being pragmatic and resourceful are spot-on but noble, likable NL who are compassionate to their slaves (despite the author taking great pains to tell us this is not the case while showing us the contrary) are not okay. Again: he's a good author (just bought First Heretic tonight) but he's hasn't written authentic NL, at least if IA is the standard.

Manchu wrote:

Rascon wrote:would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Wise SW who express themselves in mystical terms are okay. SW that are debating Heideggar's concerns about technology are problematic.

Why, out of curiosity? The Space Wolves have certainly cultivated a "barbaric" image, but I'm also fairly sure Russ wrote at least one book. And as we can all roundly agree they're flavored a lot by the Vikings, it's worth pointing out that the Vikings certainly didn't scorn knowledge or even literary arts - they wrote some pretty epic stuff.

So, to get to what you're actually asking, NL being pragmatic and resourceful are spot-on but noble, likable NL who are compassionate to their slaves (despite the author taking great pains to tell us this is not the case while showing us the contrary) are not okay. Again: he's a good author (just bought First Heretic tonight) but he's hasn't written authentic NL, at least if IA is the standard.

That's a good point, but I feel it's fundamentally different from what Rascon was asking about. The character, or maybe even the very nature, of the Night Lords is represented incorrectly, in your view, whereas I don't think the same would be said to be true about a Space Wolf who wasn't an illiterate idiot.

Characters are usually better when they aren't caricatures.

@Seaward: There's a big difference between Space Wolves being illiterate numbskulls (they are not) and them being Ivy League philosophy professors (they are not).

Manchu wrote:@Seaward: There's a big difference between Space Wolves being illiterate numbskulls (they are not) and them being Ivy League philosophy professors (they are not).

I dunno. If what was said above about Ragnar in the Space Wolf Omnibus is true, they might be closer than we think!

I wouldn't worry about that, my good man.

Manchu wrote:I wouldn't worry about that, my good man.

Well, are you really saying that individual Space Wolves couldn't have an interest in history, or science, or technology, or art? If so, I do in fact worry about that.

::crooked eyebrow::

Um, nope. I am saying that SW don't need to be written out of character (suede patches on tweed elbows sort of thing) in order to take an interest in history, science, or technology. Just like Night Lords don't need to be written as darkly noble to be interesting protagonists.

Manchu wrote:::crooked eyebrow::

Um, nope. I am saying that SW don't need to be written out of character (suede patches on tweed elbows sort of thing) in order to take an interest in history, science, or technology. Just like Night Lords don't need to be written as darkly noble to be interesting protagonists.

Right, which illustrates the point I was trying to make, I think. We both agree that a Space Wolf could have interests not necessarily considered "Space Wolfie" - that's what I meant when I said "intellectual" earlier, and you seemed to flatly disagree with it. When it's been more specifically defined a bit, we're both in agreement - though is there a reason you left out art?

That's a relatively minor issue that somewhat speaks to the essence of the chapter/Legion/whatever. You're making the point that Night Lords shouldn't, essentially, ever really be compassionate to anybody, and I agree with you there as well - that's a core tenet of their principles. However, it's possible that what could seem compassionate to one person might not seem compassionate to another. Just as what could seem intellectual to one person might not seem intellectual to another.

Note: I could be talking out of my ass here, I haven't actually read the book in question. I'm just thinking it may be an interpretation issue. If the author fundamentally got Night Lords wrong, so be it.

Okay, I finally see the distinction you're making and we can go from there. Night Lords are simply not noble. In any way, shape, or form. I don't want to get bogged down with the word "compassion" because I'm sure I'll already have the A D-B fanclub breathing down my neck about it should they stumble across my earlier comments. But he does want Talos and at least some of the others to come off as dark heroes--and by "hero," I don't simply mean "protagonist."

To the fanclub: I don't need a list of all terrible things that Talos et alia do in the new NL stories (and they don't have many bad moments anyway). We all know very well that in a 40k novel, you can forgive a character the vilest acts of torture as long as he truly loves his Primarch. If anyone is too blinkered to notice Dembski-Bowden pulling the wool over your eyes about this cast being Chaos Space Marines when they're mostly written as a renegade chapter, then I doubt we'll be able to have a very useful conversation about it. And I'm also not about to say that Dembski-Bowden didn't do all of this on purpose. I'm just saying that whether it was intentional or not, it's not the Night Lords.

Manchu wrote:

Rascon wrote:would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Wise SW who express themselves in mystical terms are okay. SW that are debating Heideggar's concerns about technology are problematic. So, to get to what you're actually asking, NL being pragmatic and resourceful are spot-on but noble, likable NL who are compassionate to their slaves (despite the author taking great pains to tell us this is not the case while showing us the contrary) are not okay. Again: he's a good author (just bought First Heretic tonight) but he's hasn't written authentic NL, at least if IA is the standard.

That's the problem right there, for the most part.

IA is, sadly, no longer the standard, even though it should be!

Of course, SOME of the changes in the recent HH series are good (LEGION adding some layers to what could have been a one note...Legion), and some are bad (The unnecessary muddling of the Psyker situation via The Council of Nikaea).

I guess we'll have to view the thing as a whole to be able to render an accurate Final Judgment.

Which, given the pace we're on now, might be a ways away...

Manchu wrote:

Rascon wrote:would you have the same complaint about a SW series where some of the characters were thoughtful/introspective/dare I say, intellectual?

Wise SW who express themselves in mystical terms are okay. SW that are debating Heideggar's concerns about technology are problematic. So, to get to what you're actually asking, NL being pragmatic and resourceful are spot-on but noble, likable NL who are compassionate to their slaves (despite the author taking great pains to tell us this is not the case while showing us the contrary) are not okay. Again: he's a good author (just bought First Heretic tonight) but he's hasn't written authentic NL, at least if IA is the standard.

I was actually really just asking about Space Wolves. I'm not sure that I agree that chapters are so thoroughly archetyped/stereotyped that we can extrapolate every detail of their culture, philosophies, etc. from the couple-sentence blurbs they get. Just as an example, and I know it's a pretty weak piece of proof, but in the Deathwatch RPG, Space Wolf characters aren't at all prevented from taking the "Studious" Demeanor, nor are they prevented from picking up things like, "Lore: Scholastic".

The point is not that they aren't or can't be smart SW. (We're doing that thread again, are we?) The point is that there are no SW who have posh Oxford accents ("I say, Gærhialm, what a damn fine sherry!"). Some superficial characterizations break continuity while their deeper manifestations do not. At any level of analysis, however, nobility is not a characteristic of Night Lords. It is similar to writing a Grey Hunter with the mannerisms of C-3P0.

Manchu wrote:The point is not that there aren't or can't be smart SW. The point is that there are no SW who have posh Oxford accents ("I say, Gærhialm, what a damn fine sherry!"). Some superficial characterizations break continuity while their deeper manifestations do not. At any level of analysis, however, nibility is not a characteristic of Night Lords. It is similar to writing a Grey Hunter with the mannerisms of C-3P0.

Okay. But again, I was just asking about the Space Wolves. I don't disagree with you on the Night Lords.

How about that Fulgrim, eh?

Seaward wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Actually Ragnar Blackmane is one of the most, thoughtful introspective characters I've read about in the BL. I remember him having an existential crisis about relativism which is decreed a sin by The Emperor.
That wacky Barbarian.

Ha, really? I may have to revise my opinion that a Space Wolf would stare at a book in utter incomprehension for several long moments before putting a bolt through it out of fear it might attack him.

Really. That's just one example. He also thought long and hard about the socially learned Bigotry. The Emperor strongly encourages prejudice against mutants and psychics (he had his reasons and I actually agree with them) but yet made use of Navigators which are full-blown 3 eyed mutants. He wondered if it was "right" to feel so "good" killing ugly mutants that had served their Emperor all their life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The point is not that they aren't or can't be smart SW. (We're doing that thread again, are we?) The point is that there are no SW who have posh Oxford accents ("I say, Gærhialm, what a damn fine sherry!"). Some superficial characterizations break continuity while their deeper manifestations do not. At any level of analysis, however, nobility is not a characteristic of Night Lords. It is similar to writing a Grey Hunter with the mannerisms of C-3P0.

Right. Basically Ragnar was smart. Not learned. Surely such a thing existed in real life. There were Viking Beserkirs that terrorized Briton yet still wondered about the nature of their existance.

Manchu wrote:Okay, I finally see the distinction you're making and we can go from there. Night Lords are simply not noble. In any way, shape, or form. I don't want to get bogged down with the word "compassion" because I'm sure I'll already have the A D-B fanclub breathing down my neck about it should they stumble across my earlier comments. But he does want Talos and at least some of the others to come off as dark heroes--and by "hero," I don't simply mean "protagonist."

To the fanclub: I don't need a list of all terrible things that Talos et alia do in the new NL stories (and they don't have many bad moments anyway). We all know very well that in a 40k novel, you can forgive a character the vilest acts of torture as long as he truly loves his Primarch. If anyone is too blinkered to notice Dembski-Bowden pulling the wool over your eyes about this cast being Chaos Space Marines when they're mostly written as a renegade chapter, then I doubt we'll be able to have a very useful conversation about it. And I'm also not about to say that Dembski-Bowden didn't do all of this on purpose. I'm just saying that whether it was intentional or not, it's not the Night Lords.

Can it not be true that one member of a company lives to better his company and Legion, while the rest are self-serving bastards who only work together to further their own existences?

If that is your definition of noble, than so be it.

A protagonist HAS to have some redeeming values for the reader to identify with, or you don't care about the story.
I can think of plenty of novels/movies/tv shows with characters that had no redeeming characteristics, even if it was in character for them, and those did not leave me wanting more or giving a gak about their story.

Calling people Fanboys for disagreeing with your POV is not conducive to good discussion.

Whether or not a protagonist MUST have redeeming qualities is debatable. (Unless you think that your standards are absolute while you are telling others the opposite?) In any case, the redeeming quality you're talking about does not necessarily have to be kindness, compassion, or another similar trait. It could very simply be humor, cunning, perseverance, or another non-moral trait. One great example of a totally vile but extremely interesting protagonist is Malus Darkblade.

And, to be clear, I don't call people who disagree with me fanboys. The people that I call fanboys are the ones who believe that Dan Abnett, Aaron Dembski-Bowden, or whoever (J. J. Abrams, J. K. Rowling, Joss Whedon, and J. R. R. Tolkien all come to mind here) can do no wrong because they have managed to do some things well. Those are the type of people who seem to intentionally misinterpret people who criticize the object of their fandom in order to evade the legitimacy of the criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skrulnik wrote:Can it not be true that one member of a company lives to better his company and Legion, while the rest are self-serving bastards who only work together to further their own existences?

It really isn't a question of pragmatically trying to keep your unit effective versus being totally self-serving. Again, I refer you to Malus Darkblade. You're simply reframing the discussion to avoid the actual criticism, which is Dembski-Bowden's Night Lords in Soul Hunter and Throne of Lies are poor representations of the Night Lords established before those works.

I disagree. When the crew needs special identity tags to prevent the Astartes from preying on each other's staff, they kill each other over equipment, and all of them (including Talos) take sadistic pleasure in terrifying their opponents prior to killing them, then they're a pretty much in line with prior representations of the Night Lords, if we take that single company (or warband depending on whose perspective you take) as representative of the Legion.

It's not like the author didn't make it clear that other Night Lords, particularly those also favoured by the Night Haunter, regarded Talos as a self-righteous tool.

The diversity of characters and characterizations in the book made for a refreshing change from the usual collections of stereotypes that inhabit 40k fluff, up to and including the part where even the stereotype Uzas takes some time out of being a cardboad cutout.

I am definitely giving my opinion on things. We are talking about subjective ideas, not black white, true false ideas.

I am not re-framing anything. I said straight out that I disagreed with you about your perception of the characterization of the Night Lords previously.

A couple pages in the IA article was barely enough to get the general demeanour of the Legion.
When I read that article, I saw a group of soldiers disillusioned with the war, and that were used to fighting in a morally ambiguous manner.
This did not preclude them from having a code they live by.

And expecting characters to be a carbon copy of old fluff creates boring characters I dont want to read about.
Most of the main characters break from the fluff stereotype in some manner.

Gaunt has compassion for his men -- the rest of the commisars will shoot you in the head.
Malus actually cares about his fellow Dark Elves to an extent, as evidenced by his being tied up or left outside the walls when he was overtaken by the demon.
Fulgrim has the tragedy that he doesn't see his pride as a fault, where we can see it coming.
Talos has his Legion and his attachment to Septimus, as you have pointed out.

Their differences from the established fluff is what makes them interesting to me.
It doesn't break the universe for me, to have one character that is outside the mold.

People wonder why were Primarchs were so weakly willed,you have to remember several things:
1.)They were sucked into the warp when they were just infants at which point Chaos could plants seeds of rebellion in them and 2.)Chaos Gods are very powerful,Sanguinius was nearly broken,tested by the Khorne(that may explan why Fulgrim was possesed,not because of the gulit,but because of the Chaos power),while Horus was corrupted by the entire Chaos Pantheon.
These are just my theories so don't be too hard on me.

@Nurglitch: I've already addressed one of your points. In a 40k novel, much can be forgiven in exchange for living up to the fascistic ideals of the hero. If the character unapologetically kicks a lot of ass and is sincerely loyal to whatever sympathetic ideal, that's usually enough for the BL readership. In Talos's case, that ideal is "the Legion" or, better yet, Kurze himself (take that, Vandred!)--although, as you wisely point out, Talos's concept of what these things signify is not very authentic. And in this sense, Dembski-Bowden is engineering sympathy for his personal world rather than contributing to a larger, better one that pre-exists his ideas.

@skrulnik: Exception-to-the-rules characters (written by pulp novelists that you might say have "Drizzt syndrome") seem more like the rule than the exception. You bring up Gaunt and I'll throw Cain out there, too. Where is the hardass Commissar? Well, A D-B kills one off in Cadian Blood, specifically for being a true-to-the-fluff hardass, while rewarding his more "original" characters--who are uniformly boring--with survival and possible futures in a series.

And then there's the Heresy books: instead of reading about Abbadon, Eidolon, or Typhus I end up reading about Torgaddon, Tarvitz, and Garro. Again, uniformly boring characters--nearly indistinguishable one from the other--that are "mould breakers" You know what? The mould is interesting. One of the triumphs of Soul Hunter is the scene with Abaddon. You know why? Dembski-Bowden wrote the character as Abaddon rather than something "novel" (read: silly). No wonder the HH books have been so heavily criticized for not establishing properly compelling motivations for the traitors . . .

By the way, the Night Lords are not really disillusioned with war. They are disillusioned by the myth of honorable combat. They actively seek out weaker opponents, who they delight in terrifying. This is not expressed in the character of any CSM in A D-B's novel or audiobook, except perhaps Vandred--and even then, Vandred's opponents are his equals in sheer strength and only inferior to him in tactical acumen (and that because he is a genius naval commander).

So read or don't read Soul Hunter?

Definitely read it. It's an awesome book.

...but you don't like it...

No, I like it a lot. As I have said many times in this thread, Soul Hunter is a good book and Aaron Dembski-Bowden is a good writer. I wish he had a little more respect for the established fluff and a little less confidence in the tropes of our times. Even good things can be criticized for their weak points.

I tried to explain this here

This is a partly a Night Lords thread, so let me use a Batman anology. The Burton Batman movies dealt with the silliness of a grown man dressing up as a bat by taking into account that the world in which Batman exists is itself somewhat silly and stylized. The Nolan movies sidestep the issue by giving Batman more "realistic" gear and throwing him into more "realitic" situations. Instead of the Batmobile, we get a souped-up Hummer. Instead of being a super villain, the Joker is a terrorist. While The Dark Knight is clearly a better film than 1989's Batman in so many ways, it doesn't manage to capture the authentic feeling of Batman as well. I think Soul Hunter and Throne of Lies are like The Dark Knight in this regard.