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.

Hey all,

Finally gettting back to my Horus Heresy novels and just finished reading Prospero Burns. I have a few comments about it. The first being, given the title, I expected more of a focus on the assault of Prospero and not that the battle itself would take up such a small part of the book. It was still an interesting story and I enjoyed the book, but there was one thing that just kept irritating page after page. Why in the Emperor's name did Dan Abnett us the phrase wet leopard growl *EVERY* time a character in the book growled. Maybe once or twice for a flourish, but it had to be in there close to 50 different times in a book about the Space Wolves who do a lot of growling. What does that even mean? Is it the growl that a wet leopard makes? Is it a leopard growl that has been kept in a bucket of water? By the end of the book I was ready to scream every time I read those 3 words.

Anyone else have a comment on that phrase?

Cheers!
Skriker

Can't say I even noticed. Then again I tend to tune out repetitive things like that when reading novels.

It may have been overused, but I don't really agree with the problem people seem to have with the phrase to be honest. Maybe it's just me, but I find it conveys the deep, rumbling of their voices (the kind of shizzle I'd expect from astartes/Space Wolves), much like a growl itself.
To me, it's like someone grunting in acknowledgement or whatever; it portray's their voices (again, deep and rumbling) and the more... primitive appearance of them. Furthermore, I find the growls of big cats to sound wet.

Again, maybe it's just me, but it makes sense to me.

For a book entitled Prospero Burns there was a relatively small amount of Burning Prospero...

It came as a counterpart to A Thousand Sons, but it was actually more like Tales of The Space Wolves, as Documented by a Remembrancer (with a Short Afterword about Prospero), but I must confess it gave me a strong liking for, and interest in, Space Wolves — and certainly towered above the comical teenage works of the Space Wolves Omnibuses.

it made me feel bad for the thousand sons....

Just Dave wrote:It may have been overused, but I don't really agree with the problem people seem to have with the phrase to be honest. Maybe it's just me, but I find it conveys the deep, rumbling of their voices (the kind of shizzle I'd expect from astartes/Space Wolves), much like a growl itself.
To me, it's like someone grunting in acknowledgement or whatever; it portray's their voices (again, deep and rumbling) and the more... primitive appearance of them. Furthermore, I find the growls of big cats to sound wet.

Again, maybe it's just me, but it makes sense to me.

I agree that I expect that the Space Wolves would growl things out their words a lot, and I don't disagree with your thoughts that you find the growls of big cats to sound wet. So what is wrong with just saying that the space wolf growled? Flourished with a desciptor like wet leopard growl for emphasis "occasionally" and not pretty much every time. I am also confused as to why they weren't growling, well, like wolves in the first place. Wolves growl all the time.

It isn't the phrase itself I have a problem with so much as the excessive usage of it in a single novel.

Skriker

The audio book was top notch imo. So was a Thousand Sons.

I'm almost done with the novel myself. Excellent book too. Dan Abnett is still the best by far. I really wish they had given him the entire HH novel series to write himself. lol

Skriker wrote:

Just Dave wrote:It may have been overused, but I don't really agree with the problem people seem to have with the phrase to be honest. Maybe it's just me, but I find it conveys the deep, rumbling of their voices (the kind of shizzle I'd expect from astartes/Space Wolves), much like a growl itself.
To me, it's like someone grunting in acknowledgement or whatever; it portray's their voices (again, deep and rumbling) and the more... primitive appearance of them. Furthermore, I find the growls of big cats to sound wet.

Again, maybe it's just me, but it makes sense to me.

I agree that I expect that the Space Wolves would growl things out their words a lot, and I don't disagree with your thoughts that you find the growls of big cats to sound wet. So what is wrong with just saying that the space wolf growled? Flourished with a desciptor like wet leopard growl for emphasis "occasionally" and not pretty much every time. I am also confused as to why they weren't growling, well, like wolves in the first place. Wolves growl all the time.

It isn't the phrase itself I have a problem with so much as the excessive usage of it in a single novel.

Skriker

I agree; saying it every time/so regularly or without little variation in the term did get old I must admit.
Although personally, I do think "growling like a wolf" would be far too obvious a simile IMHO; I prefer "wet leopard growl" over that myself.

As Ironsnake said though, Abnett's definitely my favourite BL author. Though AD-B's catching up...

I have to agree, partially. It was over used, but I couldn't think of a viable alternative.

The main thing that bugged me is that the phrase: "there are no wolves on Fenris" wasn't explained, but I get the idea that was the point.

I have a copy of Prospero Burns, yet I have no desire to read it at all. The only reason I have it is because I managed to pick up a signed copy, the reasons given above are why I'm not a fan, preferred A Thousand Sons.

^ Funnily enough, I have a signed copy of A Thousand Sons!

Thank God Im not alone.
Words cannot express how aggravated the overuse of that word made me.
In hindsight I think he might have done it as a piss take.

I actually liked Prospero Burns much better than A Thousand Sons. It's top notch writing, an interesting plot without any of the cheesiness or flat characters or blatant bolter-porn. It's a long, slow build-up, and when the action does come, it's a very narrow, on the ground view of shocking violence.

Anyway I always got the feeling that when Abnett got assigned the most cliche, over the top legion possible to write about, he just said "ah, flubb it" and did the opposite of what everyone expected. No Wolfy McWolferson riding his PowerWolf swinging the WolfAxe bellowing like a viking every other scene. It's a more subtle take on things. It's a fly on the wall observing the inner workings of a more "realistic" take on the Space Wolves legion. He even goes so far as to avoid using their somewhat lame given name, calling them the Vylka Fenrya or whatever instead.

All in all it was a more challenging read than your average HH novel, but definitely one of the better ones.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Anyway I always got the feeling that when Abnett got assigned the most cliche, over the top legion possible to write about, he just said "ah, flubb it" and did the opposite of what everyone expected. No Wolfy McWolferson riding his PowerWolf swinging the WolfAxe bellowing like a viking every other scene. It's a more subtle take on things. It's a fly on the wall observing the inner workings of a more "realistic" take on the Space Wolves legion. He even goes so far as to avoid using their somewhat lame given name, calling them the Vylka Fenrya or whatever instead.

All in all it was a more challenging read than your average HH novel, but definitely one of the better ones.

Definitely agree here. It was a good look at the wolves I think and showed that they are more than just the wild beasts many make them out to be. It was definitely a good read overall. So far I have to say that I have really enjoyed most of the Horus Heresy novels. The only two I didn't like was the first Dark angels based book as I wasn't really interested in reading a "fantasy" novel and also Nemesis. I tried to read it at one point and just couldn't get enough traction with the characters or story to care in the least. I'll give it another go at some point and see if I am in a different enough mood to like it. Currently about 1/3rd of the way into The First Heretic and enjoying it immensely so far.

Skriker

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:I actually liked Prospero Burns much better than A Thousand Sons. It's top notch writing, an interesting plot without any of the cheesiness or flat characters or blatant bolter-porn. It's a long, slow build-up, and when the action does come, it's a very narrow, on the ground view of shocking violence.

Anyway I always got the feeling that when Abnett got assigned the most cliche, over the top legion possible to write about, he just said "ah, flubb it" and did the opposite of what everyone expected. No Wolfy McWolferson riding his PowerWolf swinging the WolfAxe bellowing like a viking every other scene. It's a more subtle take on things. It's a fly on the wall observing the inner workings of a more "realistic" take on the Space Wolves legion. He even goes so far as to avoid using their somewhat lame given name, calling them the Vylka Fenrya or whatever instead.

All in all it was a more challenging read than your average HH novel, but definitely one of the better ones.

Agreed, it was a really good novel. I'm currently working through A Thousand Sons, but I'm disappointed by the far different tone of it. Sure it's not as slow-burning, but the characters aren't as well-defined and I find that Ahriman is under-powered for a chief librarian... anyways, it's not bad but thus far I far preferred Prospero Burns (and not just cuz I'm a Space Wolves player).

Oy, when you say 'slow burning' you mean smouldering like a wet leopard.

And really, 'liquid' would have worked much better than 'wet'. Wet allows you to think of a literally wet cat. Liquid would force the reader to apply the adjective to the sound, not the creator of the sound.

Now I need to find out if leopards sound different when wet or coated with some other substance.

I suppose the phrase wet leopard growl rolls a bit more than the growl of a leopard that has been dipped in peanut butter and rolled in toasted almonds and then coated in dark chocolate.

Wet, as in phlegmy. More purr than growl. And 100% stupid, like that whole book makes the Space Wolves look as a Legion.

vitki wrote:I suppose the phrase wet leopard growl rolls a bit more than the growl of a leopard that has been dipped in peanut butter and rolled in toasted almonds and then coated in dark chocolate.

LOL! Thanks I now have a "wet" keyboard, monitor and laptop...

Skriker

vitki wrote:Now I need to find out if leopards sound different when wet or coated with some other substance.

I suppose the phrase wet leopard growl rolls a bit more than the growl of a leopard that has been dipped in peanut butter and rolled in toasted almonds and then coated in dark chocolate.

Can't speak for the writer, obviously, and gave up on the HH series before this book, but Abnett is one of the better BL writers (as in often tries to put some literary merit into his works, rather than most of the other shameless hacks) - and he is dealing with one of the most legendary events in this setting (of the order of the war against Troy in ours).

And Space Wolves are ones for their Epic oral Sagas... so I'd guess that Abnett's going for the tried and tested method of adding Epic gravitas (and in-setting verisimilitude) to his tale by using the repeated epithets of Homer's style: see 'Wine-dark sea' and so on in 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'.

Of course, most folks wouldn't read Homer and think, 'If I read 'Swift-footed Achilles' or 'Rosy-fingered dawn' just one more time I'm throwing this book at the wall!', but this was a pretty common reaction to 'Wet leopard growl'... so maybe Abnett didn't quite pull it off as well as he'd intended?

Are there any other repeated epithets in the novel? If there are then that indicates that that might have been what he was up to (and fair play to him if so!); if not then he did it wrong (or clueless editors were at 'work').

Just an ill-informed guess and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt....

tsz52 wrote:[And Space Wolves are ones for their Epic oral Sagas... so I'd guess that Abnett's going for the tried and tested method of adding Epic gravitas (and in-setting verisimilitude) to his tale by using the repeated epithets of Homer's style: see 'Wine-dark sea' and so on in 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'.

Of course, most folks wouldn't read Homer and think, 'If I read 'Swift-footed Achilles' or 'Rosy-fingered dawn' just one more time I'm throwing this book at the wall!', but this was a pretty common reaction to 'Wet leopard growl'... so maybe Abnett didn't quite pull it off as well as he'd intended?

Are there any other repeated epithets in the novel? If there are then that indicates that that might have been what he was up to (and fair play to him if so!); if not then he did it wrong (or clueless editors were at 'work').

Just an ill-informed guess and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt....

Nice comparison to Homer there. I like that a lot. It has been a long time since I read the Illiad or the Odyssey. Might be time to go back and give them a re-read now that my sensibilities have apparently changed.

I don't recall any other over used phrases in Prospero Burns, though. Nothing wrong with giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Skriker

Omegus wrote:Wet, as in phlegmy. More purr than growl. And 100% stupid, like that whole book makes the Space Wolves look as a Legion.

You think Prospero Burns makes the Space Wolves look 'stupid'? Really? More stupid than, say, William King's 'Space Viking Erik and his foaming Space Ale' trilogy? Or, Hagar-the-jolly-space-wolf from Battle for the Abyss?

I'm with everyone else here - Dan Abnett managed to drag the Wolves back from the 'comedy' end of 40k and finally make them believable...

I think it's strange he went with "Leopards" over "Wolves".

Wolf growl: Grrrrrr...

Leopard growl: Rrr-Ral-RAL!!!

"You dare questing me, heretic? Rrr-Ral-RAL!!!"

Andilus Greatsword wrote:Agreed, it was a really good novel. I'm currently working through A Thousand Sons, but I'm disappointed by the far different tone of it. Sure it's not as slow-burning, but the characters aren't as well-defined and I find that Ahriman is under-powered for a chief librarian... anyways, it's not bad but thus far I far preferred Prospero Burns (and not just cuz I'm a Space Wolves player).

I actually quite enjoyed the fact that Ahriman wasn't written as an overpowered "I can do EVERYTHING AHAHAHA" character, like one or two of the other Sons characters in other books *cough Outcast Dead cough*. To me, that made him a more believable character, instead of just being nothing but a vessel for lolhaxpowers. Besides, power isn't just measured by how many people you can kill with your mind.

I also quite liked Ahriman's personality, but I do agree the other characters weren't as developed or defined.

I enjoyed both books, but I really do wish I'd never seen anybody point out the "wet leopard-growl" phrase. It hadn't bothered me the first time I read Prospero Burns, but now that it's been pointed out, I can't help but notice it. Once seen, it cannot be unseen!

Small, Far Away wrote:I have to agree, partially. It was over used, but I couldn't think of a viable alternative.

The main thing that bugged me is that the phrase: "there are no wolves on Fenris" wasn't explained, but I get the idea that was the point.

It was, actually.



Personally, Leman Russ's voice being described as a "wet-leopard purr" was the greatest fething thing I have ever read, the funniest thing ever.

As for the book itself? I am split on the Wolves. I like some aspects of the Legion in it, particularly their grim, manly Norse feel (As compared to the Space Wolves codex which was just stupid), and their focus on pragmatism ("The Rout is capable of anything. That is its point."), I also can't help but still dislike the Wolves for their, well, stupidity on occasions. Frankly, the razing of Prospero could have been entirely avoided had Russ and his Wolves not consistently assumed the worst about Magnus.

Void__Dragon wrote:As for the book itself? I am split on the Wolves. I like some aspects of the Legion in it, particularly their grim, manly Norse feel (As compared to the Space Wolves codex which was just stupid), and their focus on pragmatism ("The Rout is capable of anything. That is its point.", I also can't help but still dislike the Wolves for their, well, stupidity on occasions. Frankly, the razing of Prospero could have been entirely avoided had Russ and his Wolves not consistently assumed the worst about Magnus.

Hahaha oh man THIS. A small part of me likes the Wolves - but the rest of me, being a Thousand sons fan, is completely ARGH WHUT at them.

Leman Russ talking to himself indeed.

He mostly did that because Magnus was sealed in his tower being all emo and not talking to anyone. That and SWs are a bit superstitious, if you haven't noticed.