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 was wondering during a ponderous moment the other day which book would the majority of you guys think is the best one out of the two mentioned in the title. I know it may seem a bit..weird to compare just these two but the reason I'm asking is this: Dan Abnett is probably the daddy of BL's stable of authors whereas Gav Thorpe has been spoken of in quite a few places that I've seen on places like this website and several others as..maybe, sub-par? At the very least I've seen more than a few people say that they are not exactly a fan of his writing, and I included myself among them...

...until I read Deliverance Lost. Basically, that book blew me completely away! It was one of, in my opinion, one of the best HH books in the series and totally made me think of Gav Thorpe in a different light. He really arrived in style with that book, I reckon. But Prospero Burning was a book that, while receiving rave reviews from just about everyone who commented on it, I myself really struggled through it and didn't really enjoy at all. For one thing, the very title was misleading. Having the word 'Prospero' plastered across the front gave me the impression that it was going to be about the war on Prospero but from the Space Wolves side, but it wasn't anything of the kind, not even close. In fact, the only part of the book that mentioned it was in the last fifteen pages or so. The rest of the book was all about the character progression of this guy who crashed on Fenris, got rescued by a Space Wolf that rather rudely gouged one of his eyes out without any kind of explanation that he was about to do something so brutal to him (which did make me laugh, I must admit), then he just followed the Wolves around while they kicked up a bit of a fuss here and there.

In my opinion, Gav Thorpe well and truly, and dare I say..effortlessly, made The Abnett look like a fanfic beginner. I was wondering if any of you guys agree with me or think I need my head testing? I'll not bother with a poll because I'd rather just hear what you think.

I've really stopped liking Abnett's books, i hated the burning of prospero you got better characterization of the space wolves in the thousand sons book i got really sick and tired of his archeology char and it really pissed me off that he was the focus of the book instead of the battle thats the tittle of the book, i mean for fraks sake the title fight got one chapter.

The raven guard book however was i thought great, i'll fully admit having read crap like the last chancers i was hesitant going in but i ended up really liking it.

I actually really liked Prospero Burns, it was ponderous but it let you get to know the characters and developed things, which is one of my main complaints with Black Library books in general (and makes A Thousand Sons look embarrassing in comparison... of course, if you want to read about the battle of Prospero itself, that's the one to go to). Haven't read Deliverance Lost though.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I actually really liked Prospero Burns, it was ponderous but it let you get to know the characters and developed things, which is one of my main complaints with Black Library books in general (and makes A Thousand Sons look embarrassing in comparison... of course, if you want to read about the battle of Prospero itself, that's the one to go to). Haven't read Deliverance Lost though.

So you would be among the majority it seems. I just don't get it though. I thought that book wasn't just slow but painfully so. It just didn't have that epic feel to it that I've come to expect from a HH book. I'm going to give it another go at some point and see if I can 'get it' like most other people seem to but...I'm not holding my breath. If I think about it, I've had problems with quite a few of Abnetts books. The Gaunt books were dire in my opinion but Eisenhorn...now that's a different matter entirely. That, quite simply, kicks some seriously heavy gauge bottom and still has room for some desert.

On another note, you SO should give Deliverence Lost a go, it's awesomeness is rivaled only by it's subtle sense of genius that's threaded throughout every sentence. Truly I don't know how anyone could come up with something that good. I used to be quite dismissive of Gav Thorpe after reading his Dark Angel books but he must have had a brain transplant because it's as if a completely different person has taken over his identity. Try it, you'll see what I mean.

I skipped Prospero Burns, but I felt Thousand Sons was easily one of the best HH books out there. No love for Space Puppies here. I have every intention of reading Deliverance Lost when I get there though. So far I only skipped Prospero and the second DA book.

I listened to both PB & 1k sons audio books at work and loved both of them. I thought they were really good insight on two chapters I didn't really know much about.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
I skipped Prospero Burns, but I felt Thousand Sons was easily one of the best HH books out there. No love for Space Puppies here. I have every intention of reading Deliverance Lost when I get there though. So far I only skipped Prospero and the second DA book.

You're not missing anything by giving it a miss. You'll love the Raven Guard book though. In fact, I think every book including and past A Thousand Sons, except the SW one take a noticeably healthy turn for the better. After reading the opening trilogy and not including Fulgrim, the series seemed to take a turn for the worse which put a huge dent in my love for the series. But from A Thousand Sons, (again except the SW one and maybe The Outcast Dead which is merely 'good'), the quality in general has gone WAY up. The Primarchs, for example, is another one of the shining lights of the series that took me by surprise. The latest one Shadows of Treachery has been the first book since Prospero Burning that hasn't been anything special. The Crimson Fist and The Prince of Crows that are in it are good but the others were terrible.

But The Battle of Terra trilogy is something that I'd sell a kidney to get an early read of. I feel like a kid at Christmas when it comes to those.

I thought both these books were pretty lackluster to be honest. Thousand Sons was WAY better than Prospero. Deliverance Lost, well the Alpha Legion characters were more interesting than the Raven Guard.

Thinking about it, I remember listening to an interview of Dan Abnett that was promoting Prospero Burning that was due out soon after and he said something that, to me, was rather telling. He said that when he and McNeill got together to work on both the Prospero books, which were originally due out a month apart, Abnett was going to write the Thousand Sons book and McNeill the SW one for the simple reason that Abnett didn't have any appreciable enthusiasm, or even interest, in writing about the Space Wolves. He just wasn't, basically, that bothered about the SW's, they didn't invoke much interest in him at all. He said that they were basically Vikings in space which didn't appeal to him.

Nevertheless, he chose, ultimately, to choose the SW one because it represented a challenge to him, which, while I respect him for that, wasn't maybe a good idea after all. Maybe if they had written the books the other way around then they would have been better, maybe not. But still....something to think about.

 Muhr wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I actually really liked Prospero Burns, it was ponderous but it let you get to know the characters and developed things, which is one of my main complaints with Black Library books in general (and makes A Thousand Sons look embarrassing in comparison... of course, if you want to read about the battle of Prospero itself, that's the one to go to). Haven't read Deliverance Lost though.

So you would be among the majority it seems. I just don't get it though. I thought that book wasn't just slow but painfully so. It just didn't have that epic feel to it that I've come to expect from a HH book. I'm going to give it another go at some point and see if I can 'get it' like most other people seem to but...I'm not holding my breath. If I think about it, I've had problems with quite a few of Abnetts books. The Gaunt books were dire in my opinion but Eisenhorn...now that's a different matter entirely. That, quite simply, kicks some seriously heavy gauge bottom and still has room for some desert.

On another note, you SO should give Deliverence Lost a go, it's awesomeness is rivaled only by it's subtle sense of genius that's threaded throughout every sentence. Truly I don't know how anyone could come up with something that good. I used to be quite dismissive of Gav Thorpe after reading his Dark Angel books but he must have had a brain transplant because it's as if a completely different person has taken over his identity. Try it, you'll see what I mean.

I've actually gotten the impression that Prospero Burns has a very mixed reception, I've heard people say it's very good, or painfully boring (understandable since the majority of BL books are straight-up Bolter Porn). It's certainly a very different and unusual BL book, and I can understand if someone wouldn't like it. To each their own.

Actually liked Propero Burns. It was a really neat look in to the Wolves. personally I like that take on the Wolves a bit better than the older Space Wolf books by King. Atleast Dan kept it straight about when the Marines were and weren't wearing helmets.

Out of the 11 HH books I have read so far, prospero burns was my 4th favourite (after FotE, AoD and KNF). I actually really enjoyed the character progression of the main character, which surprises me as none of the other HH books are told from only one perspective. I found a thousand sons quite dull on the other hand, for me THAT felt slow and unfulfiling , Magnuses decisions annoyed me no end.
Having just read "Fear to Tread" I now understand how important it is to have a non astartes point of view on events (I found that rather mediocre).

My love for Prosperous Burns stems from the dichotomy. Up until that point, the Hersey books had taken place in the ultra high tech Imperium, and then suddenly, you've got Fenrisians bashing each other over the head with hammers and chasing each other in ice skiffs. It's not bolter porn, but it is stills prolonged life and death struggle that, if anything, is made more tense by the perception of the author's own mortality as opposed to the Astartes who are totally unconcerned with the prospect of their own destruction.

Then come the Wolves, who are physiologically Space Marines (mostly) but are culturally very different from their fellow Astartes.

Deliverance Lost was pretty nifty too, but I'll admit to being biased towards the Wolves.

Prospero Burns is one of the top 3 HH novels. TFH and 1K Sons are the other 2. DL is solid, bug that's it.

While technically not HH, The Night Lord trilogy is, IMHO the 4th best look into the HH.

I now own almost 5k worth of models that are, or will be when built and painted, all Raven Guard as a direct result of being inspired by DL.

It is worth remembering that Prospero Burns was delayed because Dan was ill (diagnosed with epilepsy iirc) and that is bound to have impacted on its creation, but I really didn't enjoy it, perhaps because it was so far from what I was expecting.

I liked Prospero Burns for what it was, not what maybe I thought it would be. Space Wolves aren't my go-to Astartes but I really enjoyed the characterisation and insight into their mindset.

Deliverance Lost filled some of the gaping plotholes from Gav's previous audiobook (and short story iirc?). It was better than I feared it was going to be,

Deliverance lost is one of my favourites of the HH series, on the other hand Prospero Burns is probably my least favourite of the series, I found it incredibly dull and I couldn't connect with any of the characters on any level nor be grabbed by the overall story.

A Thousand Sons was far better and gave off a better image/idea of the SW than Prospero Burns.

I'm more of an Abnett fan than Thorpe, but I was pretty disappointed with Prospero Burns.

Also Deliverance Lost inspired me to start a Raven Guard army, which to me shows how much I enjoyed/was inspired by it.

I liked Prospero Burns the first time I read it... when it was called Eaters of the Dead.

I also liked the movie... The 13th Warrior.

I just wish Abnett (my fav BL author) did a little more research for his "vikings in space" than just heading over to Blockbuster and grabbing the first viking culture clash movie he could find.

Having just read Deliverance Lost, I have to say that it was just okay - certainly not the best HH by any stretch of the imagination. Prospero Burns is far superior if comparing the two. I don't feel like Corax was given that badass presence that all the other Primarchs seem to be written with, he was just more or less another SM. It was a decent enough story (the editing was atrocious though, spelling and grammar errors out the wazoo) but not one that will likely stand out from the rest of the series, aside from the parts with the Emperor.

5.5 - Deliverance Lost
8.0 - Prospero Burns