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.

I’m starting to realize I’ll never finish this series because it seems to be getting incrementally worse. I’m at First Heretic and it was ok, better than many before it but haven’t read a great one in a while. The opening trilogy remind the best of what I’ve read.

Buried dagger is great in my opinion. Really good picture of a primarch and his backstory. Definitely worth it. I'd avoid titan death unless you love machine spirit porn, and slaves to darkness was a bit of a let down too.

How do people feel about The Burning of Prospero? I really am not a fan of the Space Wolves, but in reading Abnett's postscript, I realized why I enjoyed the book so much - he was writing Space Wolves that he could believe in, and in so doing made them believable. I was glad that it focused on a mortal's perspective and in so doing kept them mysterious and inapproachable - it help keep the Horus Heresy mythologized. It also kept the Thousand Sons sympathetic - the Council of Nikea still felt one-sided, an unfair, arbitrary edict.

I think I've come to prefer the mortal-centric storylines rather than astartes-centric storylines. It's why I got turned off by Deliverance Lost. They're just more interesting, it help to underscore the stakes of the war (actual human suffering), and maintains the sense of inscrutability around the Legions, Primarchs, and the Emperor.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:
How do people feel about The Burning of Prospero? I really am not a fan of the Space Wolves, but in reading Abnett's postscript, I realized why I enjoyed the book so much - he was writing Space Wolves that he could believe in, and in so doing made them believable. I was glad that it focused on a mortal's perspective and in so doing kept them mysterious and inapproachable - it help keep the Horus Heresy mythologized. It also kept the Thousand Sons sympathetic - the Council of Nikea still felt one-sided, an unfair, arbitrary edict.

I think I've come to prefer the mortal-centric storylines rather than astartes-centric storylines. It's why I got turned off by Deliverance Lost. They're just more interesting, it help to underscore the stakes of the war (actual human suffering), and maintains the sense of inscrutability around the Legions, Primarchs, and the Emperor.

I enjoyed that book. The Remembrancer approach was getting a little tired, but this book took a different angle while achieving the "observer" effect. There were also some interesting sub-plots woven through, and it was fun to see events through another perspective.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

"Whatever happens, the wrong side will win."
"How can you say that, Brother?"
"Because both sides are wrong." (paraphrased)

That exchange is from Betrayer, as part of a conversation between Argel Tal of the Word Bearers and Kharn the not yet Betrayer of the World Eaters.

It's also honestly really stupid and faux-deep IMHO, but you know.

Oh, and my favorite is A Thousand Sons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:
How do people feel about The Burning of Prospero? I really am not a fan of the Space Wolves, but in reading Abnett's postscript, I realized why I enjoyed the book so much - he was writing Space Wolves that he could believe in, and in so doing made them believable. I was glad that it focused on a mortal's perspective and in so doing kept them mysterious and inapproachable - it help keep the Horus Heresy mythologized. It also kept the Thousand Sons sympathetic - the Council of Nikea still felt one-sided, an unfair, arbitrary edict.

I think I've come to prefer the mortal-centric storylines rather than astartes-centric storylines. It's why I got turned off by Deliverance Lost. They're just more interesting, it help to underscore the stakes of the war (actual human suffering), and maintains the sense of inscrutability around the Legions, Primarchs, and the Emperor.

wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl wet leopard growl

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:
How do people feel about The Burning of Prospero? I really am not a fan of the Space Wolves, but in reading Abnett's postscript, I realized why I enjoyed the book so much - he was writing Space Wolves that he could believe in, and in so doing made them believable. I was glad that it focused on a mortal's perspective and in so doing kept them mysterious and inapproachable - it help keep the Horus Heresy mythologized. It also kept the Thousand Sons sympathetic - the Council of Nikea still felt one-sided, an unfair, arbitrary edict.

I think I've come to prefer the mortal-centric storylines rather than astartes-centric storylines. It's why I got turned off by Deliverance Lost. They're just more interesting, it help to underscore the stakes of the war (actual human suffering), and maintains the sense of inscrutability around the Legions, Primarchs, and the Emperor.

That's an interesting analysis:
Do you think the whole Horus Heresy series would have been better if seen by mortals (remembrancers, Keeler, human soldiers etc) instead of by the Astartes and Primarchs own eyes ?

I kind of do! I loved all the astartes-on-astartes stuff when they first came out, when I was in Middle School. Re-reading them as an adult, I realize that it's fun when the mystery is preserved - I like the mythologizing that happens when mortals try to explain the impossible feats that they've witnessed from the Primarchs. Some of the more successful books (in my opinion, Legion, The Outcast Dead, A Thosuand Sons) do exactly that. One of the things that made the first three books so great is that it shone a light on how different humans were from astartes - I loved all of Loken's conversations with the remembrancer. "It was a private matter." That sort of thing.

Plus, and I say this again, the stakes are a little more interesting when it's seen through a mortal's eyes. The scale and intensity of suffering that underlies the Great Crusade is brought forward.

Is there a way to see which ones are the most popular (sales numbers etc ) ?

If you go to goodreads you can see a star rating given by readers for the whole heresy series.

My favourite is probably know no fear closely followed by master of mankind. Betrayer also deserves special mention.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:
How do people feel about The Burning of Prospero? I really am not a fan of the Space Wolves, but in reading Abnett's postscript, I realized why I enjoyed the book so much - he was writing Space Wolves that he could believe in, and in so doing made them believable. I was glad that it focused on a mortal's perspective and in so doing kept them mysterious and inapproachable - it help keep the Horus Heresy mythologized. It also kept the Thousand Sons sympathetic - the Council of Nikea still felt one-sided, an unfair, arbitrary edict.

I think I've come to prefer the mortal-centric storylines rather than astartes-centric storylines. It's why I got turned off by Deliverance Lost. They're just more interesting, it help to underscore the stakes of the war (actual human suffering), and maintains the sense of inscrutability around the Legions, Primarchs, and the Emperor.

I enjoyed the book. I do not enjoy being someone who likes the book.

The Primarchs books, have you read them ? I head they are very unequal !

Only Angron so far. It was alright.

So I finished Angel Exterminatus and I must say I liked it.
Particularly the difference shown between the Chaos Space Marines of the third legion, totally corrupted and actively working for slaanesh at the end, and the Iron Warriors, who are "just" traitor marines who decided to choose their own fate. I'm genuinely curious to see how they will react to chaos and warpery stuff later in the Heresy and what will be Perturabo's reaction too.
All the small novellas were very interesting too (I have the omnibus) and some quite important (Reflection Cracked).
A bit surprised by the big change of mood of of Perturabo after the Battle of Phall though, it's really a radical change haha

Going to say "Know no fear" for the most 40k line ever "it started to rain battle tanks".........

My personal favorites so far are Betrayer, Know No Fear, Flight of the Eisenstein, and First Heretic. FH in particular is quite disturbing.

It's interesting to see how the same novels are always said to be the best or the worst (poor Dark Angels !). What about Nemesis ? I'm kinda interested by it but I don't know if it's worth it ?

 godardc wrote:
The Primarchs books, have you read them ? I head they are very unequal !

I have only read the Konrad Curze one so far, and it was... disappointing. I like Guy Haley. I like Konrad Curze. I do not like Guy Haley writing Konrad Curze. He just seems to want to make him a boring sadistic hypocrite. There was no feeling of tragic broken nobility, good intentions gone wrong, or any real exploration of the line between justice and vengeance or between pragmatic brutality and self-indulgent sadism - none of the things that could make for an interesting portrayal. Haley's Curze is just a monster trying to justify his monstrousness in what's honestly a pretty banal and whiny manner. I think he was just the wrong author for that character.

 godardc wrote:
The Primarchs books, have you read them ? I head they are very unequal !

Agreed. The Khan one was adequate and sets up the ambiguous position of the White Scars at the start of the main series. Vulkan's on the other hand was absolute trash, with nothing but bolter porn the whole way through. I am glad I borrowed that one from the library as I would have fekt miffed if I had spent actual money on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
It's interesting to see how the same novels are always said to be the best or the worst (poor Dark Angels !). What about Nemesis ? I'm kinda interested by it but I don't know if it's worth it ?

I was not particularly taken with Nemesis. Not quite the worst in the series but not really compelling. The idea of sending assassins after Horus is logical but the book feels like a tie-in for the assassin models that came out at the same time with a squad of 6 assassins. It has no beraing on the wider story so you can read it if you want but you won't really miss out on much if you skip it.

Read Fulgrim's entry and was kinda disappointed. Just cracked open the one about prospero being burned and hope it's better. They sure spend a lot of the beginning setting up this one character who's basically a historian. Well, Abnett hasn't let me down yet.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 godardc wrote:
The Primarchs books, have you read them ? I head they are very unequal !

I have only read the Konrad Curze one so far, and it was... disappointing. I like Guy Haley. I like Konrad Curze. I do not like Guy Haley writing Konrad Curze. He just seems to want to make him a boring sadistic hypocrite. There was no feeling of tragic broken nobility, good intentions gone wrong, or any real exploration of the line between justice and vengeance or between pragmatic brutality and self-indulgent sadism - none of the things that could make for an interesting portrayal. Haley's Curze is just a monster trying to justify his monstrousness in what's honestly a pretty banal and whiny manner. I think he was just the wrong author for that character.

Don't forget the poor portrayal of Sevatar and the other Night Lords. Personally I just prefer to pretend that book never happened.

Probably Betrayer for me. Tough you cannot read that as a first.

Betrayal at Cakth. Putting badass in methodical.

Master of Mankind. Abandon the promise of hope indeed.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 godardc wrote:
The Primarchs books, have you read them ? I head they are very unequal !

I have only read the Konrad Curze one so far, and it was... disappointing. I like Guy Haley. I like Konrad Curze. I do not like Guy Haley writing Konrad Curze. He just seems to want to make him a boring sadistic hypocrite. There was no feeling of tragic broken nobility, good intentions gone wrong, or any real exploration of the line between justice and vengeance or between pragmatic brutality and self-indulgent sadism - none of the things that could make for an interesting portrayal. Haley's Curze is just a monster trying to justify his monstrousness in what's honestly a pretty banal and whiny manner. I think he was just the wrong author for that character.

Don't forget the poor portrayal of Sevatar and the other Night Lords. Personally I just prefer to pretend that book never happened.

the Leman Russ one was pretty good but the one about perturabo portrayed him in a pretty bad light as nothing but a whiny kid with anger management issues and the roboute Guilliman was not arty all to my taste

 Matt Swain wrote:
Read Fulgrim's entry and was kinda disappointed. Just cracked open the one about prospero being burned and hope it's better. They sure spend a lot of the beginning setting up this one character who's basically a historian. Well, Abnett hasn't let me down yet.

You just gotta accept that that's who the book is about, and once you do, you're in for a treat. Abnett wrote it right before he was diagnosed with epilepsy, and he channeled the feelings of alienation and disorientation into that character and it's a really good piece of writing. It is very much not a war story.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Read Fulgrim's entry and was kinda disappointed. Just cracked open the one about prospero being burned and hope it's better. They sure spend a lot of the beginning setting up this one character who's basically a historian. Well, Abnett hasn't let me down yet.

You just gotta accept that that's who the book is about, and once you do, you're in for a treat. Abnett wrote it right before he was diagnosed with epilepsy, and he channeled the feelings of alienation and disorientation into that character and it's a really good piece of writing. It is very much not a war story.

Hmmm, didn't know he had epilepsy. sorry to hear it. I know that his short story "The strange demise of Titus Endor" was about Alzheimer's.

Hmm not sure, in all honesty, sorta fell out with the Horus Heresy books a while back the last one I read was Angels of Caliban which I enjoyed as it delved into the Dark Angels and Lion El'jonson's philosophies and his fight with Curze near the end was pretty awesome.
Know No Fear was great and I really enjoyed Unremembered Empire, mostly for the spectacle, it's a damn fun novel and shows how well Dan Abnett can handle multiple plotlines at once. Also like the way the Lion's written in it and his line: "‘Insult me again, brother, and theoretically I will punch you in your practical face."

Uhh Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns were great, too. Hard to choose just one especially since it's been a while since I read them lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That exchange is from Betrayer, as part of a conversation between Argel Tal of the Word Bearers and Kharn the not yet Betrayer of the World Eaters.

It's also honestly really stupid and faux-deep IMHO, but you know.

Oh, and my favorite is A Thousand Sons.

Also, agreed, I think ADB can get a bit that way in his writing and quite preachy, that was one of the reasons Master of Mankind left a bad taste in my mouth.

 godardc wrote:
It's interesting to see how the same novels are always said to be the best or the worst (poor Dark Angels !). What about Nemesis ? I'm kinda interested by it but I don't know if it's worth it ?

Super bad and totally skip-able. Unless your're some kind of super completionist just skip it. I wish I had.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Read Fulgrim's entry and was kinda disappointed. Just cracked open the one about prospero being burned and hope it's better. They sure spend a lot of the beginning setting up this one character who's basically a historian. Well, Abnett hasn't let me down yet.

You just gotta accept that that's who the book is about, and once you do, you're in for a treat. Abnett wrote it right before he was diagnosed with epilepsy, and he channeled the feelings of alienation and disorientation into that character and it's a really good piece of writing. It is very much not a war story.

Hmmm, didn't know he had epilepsy. sorry to hear it. I know that his short story "The strange demise of Titus Endor" was about Alzheimer's.

Fortunately for him it is very mild. He had one grand mal and it was quickly diagnosed, and he is now medicated and has it under control (all this is coming from his author's note at the end of Prospero Burns.). I loved "The Strange Demise of Titus Endor," I read Magos over the winter (after re-reading the Eisenhorn trilgoy), and although some of the short stories varied in quality, the novel was excellent and "The Strange Demise" was one of the better stories. Speaking of Horus Heresy, "The Keeler Image" was pretty weak tea, wasn't it?