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.

Would you take into account my entire post ? I thought we were agreeing that it was poorly done here. Though the presence of children of serfs in the Fang during an attack is not a stretch.

Then again, if children were to appear in any credible instance, I would expect them to be as expendable as any other human being is in this setting.

It's fiction. No real harm is done to any real children. You might want to chill a bit about all that.

So when the Imperium conducts exterminatus on a human planet..no children are killed, or is it just not mentioned or singled out, just check off a planet.

Hey I have seen war for real, and yeah its uglier than anything I have ever read in 40k, but just some CSM talking about some evil things they plan to do but do not happen, triggers the OTT button...thats kinda weedy.

Bad writing sure, maybe a clumsy attempt to show why the CSM are the baddies , so later the paragraphlong description of the bolter fire making their vitals burst against a wall is justified, but hey consider the source.

A bit of in your face callousness of war in a setting helps to re-enforce its immediacy, 40k is about TOTAL war, that means everyone has a target on them, and as bad as the "good guys" are, the Bad guys are suppose to be huge sums worse.

And imagine this outcome :

A squad of Marines stumble upon a den of children that display the marks of mutatation, but they desperatly plead and beg for their lives...what does the poster boys of the empire do then....

Part of the grimdarkness of the setting there is very little room for remorse or compasion, only war.

@OverwatchCNC: I can't speak to the Hunger Games but those other books are all trying to accomplish significantly different goals than the Battle of the Fang. As I said earlier, the book in question is basically a cartoon. I don't mean that dismissively. I prefer cartoons to the endless melodrama of adult fare (including A Game of Thrones, Spartacus, etc). Indeed, one of the reasons I prefer cartoons is because they tend to deal in self-conciously relativistic terms rather than absolute but ultimately inapplicable logic.

A Game of Thrones, for example, spins around and around and justifies its needless soap-operatic complexity with the "realism" of political machinations -- which, of course, opens the door to graphic sex ... somehow. The magic of the HBO mentality (I'll never believe Martin did not write this with HBO or something similar in mind). By contrast, a cartooon doesn't bother to explain itself becaue its often self-evident. The only problems arise when "adults" start watching. Take the example of Superman. To paraphrase Grant Morrison, an adult wants to know why Superman can fly. A child, meanwhile, knows that Superman can fly because this is a story.

It's actually pretty funny because the way that people use the word "cartoonish" to insult a thing is exactly what I could apply to shows like A Game of Thrones or Spartacus but not to, for example, Ian Watson's brilliant Inquisition War trilogy. People use that word "cartoonish" to talk about something that's ridiculous, overdone, out of proportion ... pretty much how I feel about the ultra-literal aesthetic that finds it okay or "realistic" to portray acts of violence against children in a novel about Space Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hyd wrote:It's fiction. No real harm is done to any real children. You might want to chill a bit about all that.

The harm I'm concerned about is aesthetic rather than moral, although I admit I often find that bad taste goes hand-in-hand with a confused moral outlook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:So when the Imperium conducts exterminatus on a human planet..no children are killed, or is it just not mentioned or singled out, just check off a planet.

Please see the first post on the second page.

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Part of the grimdarkness of the setting there is very little room for remorse or compasion, only war.

And yet the horror of that is entirely lost without some sense of remorse and compassion ... which is a role SW have actually filled in the past.

ahhh I see then atrocities are ok when conducted in a off screen or behind the scenes.

as long as it does not happen in your backyard its palatable.

ok...figures.

Yeah -- again:

(1) the point is aesthetic rather than moral

(2) we are talking about a fictional world rather than the real one

I'm not saying "genocide is okay in the real world as long as it doesn't happen to me." I'm saying "in stories, there's a difference between a graphic description and an implication or off-screen description."

Manchu wrote:@OverwatchCNC: I can't speak to the Hunger Games but those other books are all trying to accomplish significantly different goals than the Battle of the Fang. As I said earlier, the book in question is basically a cartoon. I don't mean that dismissively. I prefer cartoons to the endless melodrama of adult fare (including A Game of Thrones, Spartacus, etc). Indeed, one of the reasons I prefer cartoons is because they tend to deal in self-conciously relativistic terms rather than absolute but ultimately inapplicable logic.

One more literary question, and perhaps this will be close enough to the cartoon realm to be worthy of acknowledgment as a valid comparison. Did you have a similar problem when a child Psyker being cradled in the arms of a Salamander (who thinks he is saving the child) takes over Inquisitor Eisenhorn's mind and has him blow out the Salamanders brain with his bolt pistol?

Maybe it's just that you and I view these stories in a completely different way.

I couldn't have a problem with it because I did not read it or at least have no memory of reading it. Just on the facts that you've described, I don't have any problem with it. It's an interesting, novel scene rather than hack work.

Manchu wrote:I couldn't have a problem with it because I did not read it or at least have no memory of reading it. Just on the facts that you've described, I don't have any problem with it. It's an interesting, novel scene rather than hack work.

Fair enough, I think I fully understand where you are coming from now.

Yeah you're being a wuss, if only you were as stoic and strong as the spastic nerds who weren't bothered by it.
I haven't actually read the book you're talking about, but I can see where you're coming from. The Horus Heresy books aren't exactly Oscar Wilde, sounds like the author was trying to be sensationalist as a substitute for actual skill.

Manchu wrote:But it doesn't exist ... except that someone imagined it up. There is no ... necessity, if you see what I mean, to any of it.

And that's where our opinions differ, for removing this would notably change the look and feel of the world. I assume you'd like it better that way, but obviously this does not apply to everyone.

Manchu wrote:I don't see any need to tolerate or accept people who abuse children or have sex with animals.

There's a huge difference between actually doing this or the same being described in fiction, especially when it happens as an element to convey the setting and/or the plot. Obviously, in case of the latter the author should exercise some caution if he doesn't wish to change the tone of the entire book, but I think this is one point we both agree on.

Manchu wrote:What you perceive as "hardening" or cynicism, I perceive as desensitization and erosion of aesthetic standards.

And I'll have to live with that, but it won't change my opinion. Without wishing to evoke national stereotypes, it is no secret that the USA are somewhat more sensitive about such things - at least when the public image is concerned, and at least when it's about sex. I assume many Europeans may simply have a different mindset. Just like the same could be said for the Japanese.

But damn, how did we get from CSMs killing children to discussing hentai?

Tl;dr: Different cultures, different standards. I do not see this as an erosion, just like you wouldn't perceive your standards to be repressed. It all depends on the angle from where you're looking at it, and it may well be that we just have to acknowledge these cultural differences for what they are without judgment against the people affected by them ... at least as long as nobody gets hurt in the real life. My own tolerance goes only so far as well. Fiction, however? Meh, don't care, knock yourself out.

It is quite remarkable how fast society can change its views on what and what isn't acceptable, though. A lot of very bloody/violent computer games - ironically originating in the US, so this "erosion" if you want to call it that way does happen both ways - used to be banned in Germany, but these days it happens only rarely. The same can be said about movies and books. Even age of consent ... it's remarkable how public perception of what is and what isn't a child changes based on location and era, driven by nothing else than cultural and religious influences (considering nature itself is pretty clear on where to draw the line). In the end, we all are but a product of our upbringing.

Joey wrote:sounds like the author was trying to be sensationalist as a substitute for actual skill.

That's the sound of someone hitting the nail on the head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:it is no secret that the USA are somewhat more sensitive about such things

Well, I'd have to agree with you, stereotype or not, if I was really invoking a moral criticism against bestiality in RPGs or child abuse in fantasy novels. But I am actually being a snob rather than a prude, I suppose. See Joey's point for further clarification.

Manchu wrote:

Joey wrote:sounds like the author was trying to be sensationalist as a substitute for actual skill.

That's the sound of someone hitting the nail on the head.

If you'd read anything else by Chris Wraight, you'd know he's not one given to writing things for shock value.

What happened here then?

Manchu wrote:What happened here then?

Any number of things, potentially.
My biggest thinking is that people read something out of context and only consider it within that single framework, rather than the work as a whole.

The "Battle for the Fang" is about the Thousand Sons taking vengeance for the scouring of Prospero. The Wolves left nothing but dust when they could. The serfs, their children, et al--brutally slain.

The Thousand Sons were one of the more "peaceful" Legions prior to the scouring of Prospero. They avoided bloodshed when possible. This seems more like evolving the Legion from that to the fact that they now hold the galaxy's biggest grudge against the Wolves for their brutality on Prospero.

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Joey wrote:sounds like the author was trying to be sensationalist as a substitute for actual skill.

That's the sound of someone hitting the nail on the head.

If you'd read anything else by Chris Wraight, you'd know he's not one given to writing things for shock value.

Indeed. He is a very skilled author — books like Sword of Justice and Luthor Huss in particular displaying his fantastic way with words. Funnily enough, both of those are WHFB books — perhaps he excels at that and not the 40K side of things?

Warrior Squirrel wrote:You find the fictional Chaos marine wanting to flay the fictional kids over the line. For your own sake dont read any books about real war. No offence intended.

Feel free to use it as a sig by the way HappyGoLucky.

You're entirely missing the point.

While heaps of nasty stuff is implied in the 40K setting, and an intelligent reader must assume those terrible things are happening, they are never directly displayed for the viewer.

It's like watching a movie. You can shoot a movie and edit it in such a way they you KNOW there is terrible violence happening, but it can all be done off-camera and displayed by inference and implication. You don't need to actually show the gore and horror.

Now, do I personally find this instance to be 'over the line'?

No, I don't think so. It doesn't actually describe a graphic scene, simply one characters intent. Bearing in mind, I haven't actually read the book yet!

Kanluwen wrote:The "Battle for the Fang" is about the Thousand Sons taking vengeance for the scouring of Prospero. The Wolves left nothing but dust when they could. The serfs, their children, et al--brutally slain.

While it undoubtedly occurred, Abnett did not describe the murder of children anywhere in Prospero Burns.

Offscreen or Implied Villainy is a good way for villains to become sympathetic since the audience never actually experiences their villainy.

Chaos is Evil.

It is not cool and misunderstood.

Look only to this very forum to see how many people don't understand the former and think only the latter.

Kodanshi wrote:Funnily enough, both of those are WHFB books — perhaps he excels at that and not the 40K side of things?

Maybe so. Just looking over this thread, and Dakka as a whole over the last few years, I can tell that when people start thinking about 40k they immediately want to turn the violence "up to 11" as it were, as if that's all there was. And I guess in a few years it will be up to 12.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:Look only to this very forum to see how many people don't understand the former and think only the latter.

I certainly take your point. But I don't think off-screen violence is the culprit. For example, in this thread, people aren't concentrating on something as horrific as the murder of children being totally out of proportion to a novel about a table top game. They're concentrating on how it's "realistic."

What they're also not concentrating on is the fact that the children fought back.

I get that you think this demonstrates that SW children are super tough. My question continues to be, more or less, why do the SW have children again?

Manchu wrote:I get that you think this demonstrates that SW children are super tough. My question continues to be, more or less, why do the SW have children again?

They don't. The SW have always had a tradition of highly integrated human thralls who serve them and live in the Fang along side them.

Manchu wrote:I get that you think this demonstrates that SW children are super tough. My question continues to be, more or less, why do the SW have children again?

The Wolves themselves do not have children.

Their SERFS do.
The Fang is its own, self-contained piece of Fenris. The Tribes do not interact with it, unless the Wolves bring them there. The Serfs live a fairly peaceful existence, however...the Serfs of the Space Wolves are trained to defend the Fang(or ships of the Wolves) in times of need.

The serfs were also pulled from a warrior society. It's only sensible that the Serfs would continue the tradition for their children.

Right -- sorry for not being more clear, what I meant was "what is the point of including children in a story about genetically engineered space monks?" and it was mostly rhetorical -- as I mentioned, Dan Abnett wrote a novel about the destruction of Prospero but never once showed children being attacked. It can be done -- and, amazingly, the book can still be good.

He never once showed the children being attacked, but the characters do make mention of how "horrible" the fact that the Wolves attacking the evacuee ships was.

Like I said, this didn't detract from the book for me. The Wolves have always been like this--even Bill King's books which established the "tone" of the Wolves mentioned the serfs and how intertwined with the Wolves their lives were.

This, again, comes down to what I think is Wraight showcasing the change in the Thousand Sons. Before Prospero, such an act would have been unfathomable.
After? It's justice.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing to indicate the 1ksons would not have killed children before Prospero. It's an interesting theory but it's not especially plausible.

Manchu wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing to indicate the 1ksons would not have killed children before Prospero. It's an interesting theory but it's not especially plausible.

The fact that they went out of their way, whenever possible, to preserve planet populations isn't an indicator?

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:What happened here then?

Any number of things, potentially.
My biggest thinking is that people read something out of context and only consider it within that single framework, rather than the work as a whole.

The "Battle for the Fang" is about the Thousand Sons taking vengeance for the scouring of Prospero. The Wolves left nothing but dust when they could. The serfs, their children, et al--brutally slain.

The Thousand Sons were one of the more "peaceful" Legions prior to the scouring of Prospero. They avoided bloodshed when possible. This seems more like evolving the Legion from that to the fact that they now hold the galaxy's biggest grudge against the Wolves for their brutality on Prospero.

If you want to see well-written carnage, look at Tolkein.
In his works, entire populations are murdered by forces of evil. But he uses the language not to shock but to empart in the reader's mind the brutal savagery of the acts, and the effects it has on the charectors.
You don't have to have charectors explicitly describing acts of violence against a child.

Joey wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:What happened here then?

Any number of things, potentially.
My biggest thinking is that people read something out of context and only consider it within that single framework, rather than the work as a whole.

The "Battle for the Fang" is about the Thousand Sons taking vengeance for the scouring of Prospero. The Wolves left nothing but dust when they could. The serfs, their children, et al--brutally slain.

The Thousand Sons were one of the more "peaceful" Legions prior to the scouring of Prospero. They avoided bloodshed when possible. This seems more like evolving the Legion from that to the fact that they now hold the galaxy's biggest grudge against the Wolves for their brutality on Prospero.

If you want to see well-written carnage, look at Tolkein.
In his works, entire populations are murdered by forces of evil. But he uses the language not to shock but to empart in the reader's mind the brutal savagery of the acts, and the effects it has on the charectors.
You don't have to have charectors explicitly describing acts of violence against a child.

"Characters" aren't explicitly describing acts of violence against a child. They're explicitly describing acts of violence against warriors.

Say what you want, but the serfs and their offspring are far from helpless...as evidenced by the fact that the "helpless children" stood firm and actually fought back against superhuman killing machines.

Joey wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:What happened here then?

Any number of things, potentially.
My biggest thinking is that people read something out of context and only consider it within that single framework, rather than the work as a whole.

The "Battle for the Fang" is about the Thousand Sons taking vengeance for the scouring of Prospero. The Wolves left nothing but dust when they could. The serfs, their children, et al--brutally slain.

The Thousand Sons were one of the more "peaceful" Legions prior to the scouring of Prospero. They avoided bloodshed when possible. This seems more like evolving the Legion from that to the fact that they now hold the galaxy's biggest grudge against the Wolves for their brutality on Prospero.

If you want to see well-written carnage, look at Tolkein.
In his works, entire populations are murdered by forces of evil. But he uses the language not to shock but to empart in the reader's mind the brutal savagery of the acts, and the effects it has on the charectors.
You don't have to have charectors explicitly describing acts of violence against a child.

Well, at the very least it shows to reader how far the Thousand Sons have fallen.