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 didn't like Prospero Burns.

The first time I read Prospero Burns, I gave up about halfway through. The second time, I got past the halfway mark and was like "ey this aint so bad", and then I reached the last quarter, and it just turned completely awful.

Still wasn't as ass as Legion, though.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
Of what I have read, Necropolis is the worst. Not to say that the book is bad (just kind of average), but of the Ghosts series, to me it is by far the most tedious to read, and is chock full of missed opportunities.

I also made a drinking game for each time Abnett used the words "Sheer" and "vast" to describe something. I swear that there is at least one instance where Sheer is used three separate times in the same paragraph.

I'm a fan of the Gaunt books (Necropolis is my favourite ) but my least favourite has to be His Last Command.

bogalubov wrote:
William King is just awful.

Quoted for emphasis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 4oursword wrote:
Know No Fear was terrible, reasons already stated and shonky tense structure. Horrible.

Prospero Burns was even worse. Low point of the series for me. Much of it seemed to be building up to something, then it finished. If I ever read the words "Wet leopard-growl" again, I'll remove someone's lungs.

That's Abnett all over. Heavy on the foreplay, but fails to deliver in the end.

I approve of that metaphor.

Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?
I agree this book should be called "Chronicles of youg Hawser" maybe, but it was ranked pretty high if I'm not mistaken....

Dan Abnett is a multiple New York Times bestselling author and an award-winning comic book writer. He has written over forty novels, including the acclaimed Gaunt’s Ghosts series, and the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies. His Horus Heresy novel Prospero Burns topped the SF charts in the UK and the US.


Interesting I did get a hint (from well known BL associate) that this book was rushed in the end....

Could be me wanting Dan to be nb1. in everything....*going to wash my face now with ice cold water*...

Abnett gets a lot of credit because for the longest time, his Eisenhorn and early Gaunt's series were the best books to be found in the Ian Watson/William King/CS Goto cesspool of 40k fiction (I never really got into Ravenor, and the Bequin trilogy is shaping up to be even worse).

But we must remember, this is the man that wrote the scintillating plot of Ultramarines.

I like Dan Abnett from what little I know of he and 4Ok fic in general; but perhaps that's just because I'm reading Eisenhorn. As for William King; I enjoyed his part of the Gotrek and Felix series but it DID get better once someone else took over...

 DarthMarko wrote:
Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?

People hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Though, calling it "the adventures of casper hawser would indeed be fitting. Even the Ollonius Pius highlander sub-plot in KNF wasn't so detracting.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?

People hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Though, calling it "the adventures of casper hawser would indeed be fitting. Even the Ollonius Pius highlander sub-plot in KNF wasn't so detracting.

I think people actually hate it because it's a very slow burning tale, and is intentionally the antithesis of the bolter-porn which permeates 40k fiction. Like, whenever there's a battle, Abnet intentionally puts Hawser on the sidelines to avoid that. As a result, the book is more about Space Wolf culture than the warrior aspect which we have seen time and time again. For my part, I liked Prospero Burns, and I think it was far better than A Thousand Sons (which just felt poorly written and cartoonish).

Cartoonish?

LordConstantine wrote:
I like Dan Abnett from what little I know of he and 4Ok fic in general; but perhaps that's just because I'm reading Eisenhorn. As for William King; I enjoyed his part of the Gotrek and Felix series but it DID get better once someone else took over...

Bill Kings get's a unfair treatment here....I too enjoyed his fantasy books, as for 40k - you have to understand that this books were very early stuff ,and you need to have that in mind when you read it....
Funny quote from 1d4chan
Do note that this is as much canon as other BL anti-fluff gak.

Like first star trek for example....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?

People hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Though, calling it "the adventures of casper hawser would indeed be fitting. Even the Ollonius Pius highlander sub-plot in KNF wasn't so detracting.

I think people actually hate it because it's a very slow burning tale, and is intentionally the antithesis of the bolter-porn which permeates 40k fiction. Like, whenever there's a battle, Abnet intentionally puts Hawser on the sidelines to avoid that. As a result, the book is more about Space Wolf culture than the warrior aspect which we have seen time and time again. For my part, I liked Prospero Burns, and I think it was far better than A Thousand Sons (which just felt poorly written and cartoonish).

Agree about PB, but how do you mean "aTS" was cartoonish?
Yep it has to many cardboard characters (like in many Mcneill's books) but this was the best book in the serie for me....

Blakman wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Angel Exterminatus is a good read?

In six words: even when Fulgrim loses, he wins.

I dont think Bill King gets unfair treatment at all. What does the timing of his writing have to do with anything? He is a terrible writer in this or any age.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?

People hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Though, calling it "the adventures of casper hawser would indeed be fitting. Even the Ollonius Pius highlander sub-plot in KNF wasn't so detracting.

I think people actually hate it because it's a very slow burning tale, and is intentionally the antithesis of the bolter-porn which permeates 40k fiction. Like, whenever there's a battle, Abnet intentionally puts Hawser on the sidelines to avoid that. As a result, the book is more about Space Wolf culture than the warrior aspect which we have seen time and time again. For my part, I liked Prospero Burns, and I think it was far better than A Thousand Sons (which just felt poorly written and cartoonish).

So, you think that people hate the book because they're idiots incapable of appreciating subtly or nuance in a 40K book.

That's mildly insulting to 40K fans, but okay.

I'm pretty sure people just hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves and no one cares about Casper Hawser.

BlaxicanX wrote:
So, you think that people hate the book because they're idiots incapable of appreciating subtly or nuance in a 40K book.

That's mildly insulting to 40K fans, but okay.

I'm pretty sure people just hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Eh, I didn't hate Prospero Burns for the most part, tbh. I didn't care for the third act, but on the whole it was decent enough.

His reasons for why people might not like it did come off as fairly condescending though, IMO.

I loved Legion of the damned. At worst the title is misleading. Nonetheless, loved it.

DarkSoldier wrote:

Blakman wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Angel Exterminatus is a good read?

In six words: even when Fulgrim loses, he wins.

My six words would be: "HAVE YOU READ STORM OF IRON?!"

I didn't care for the novel myself; the Storm of Iron references were so unsubtle it was annoying, and completely prevented any anticipation or tension as you knew the fates of almost every character involved. I didn't care for the overly-stretched-out plot either, personally, as it really seemed to drag in places. However, the insight regarding Falk and Perturabo were nice, but that was about it for me.
That said, many others like it, so different strokes...

DarthMarko wrote:Dan Abnett is a multiple New York Times bestselling author and an award-winning comic book writer. He has written over forty novels, including the acclaimed Gaunt’s Ghosts series, and the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies. His Horus Heresy novel Prospero Burns topped the SF charts in the UK and the US.


Interesting I did get a hint (from well known BL associate) that this book was rushed in the end....

Could be me wanting Dan to be nb1. in everything....*going to wash my face now with ice cold water*...

Emphasise mine.

IIRC he was writing Prospero Burns when he first "discovered" his epilepsy; which was why it took so long. It was supposed to be released just after A Thousand Sons, but because of his epilepsy and the subsequent delay, two books were released in between; that's what I understood.


Personally, I really enjoyed Prospero Burns. I was somewhat disappointed by the ending, but the rest of the novel was fantastic IMHO.

I thought Know No Fear was good, but not great. It was disappointingly short and far too action centric, but the pacing was excellent (it really paralleled the speed of the unfolding events, which I loved) and I found novel enjoyable and gripping nonetheless. Far from great, but still worth reading, I thought.

Hm Dave didn't know that ? ty
So maybe that's why the final chapter was rather rushed ?


As for Perturabo - he was one primarch who really scared the gak out of me (mostly from "The Crimson Fist "), but in AE I found out he was infact
George Costanza (read: very frustrated wannabe arhitect )....

 Just Dave wrote:

DarkSoldier wrote:

Blakman wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Angel Exterminatus is a good read?

In six words: even when Fulgrim loses, he wins.

My six words would be: "HAVE YOU READ STORM OF IRON?!"

I didn't care for the novel myself; the Storm of Iron references were so unsubtle it was annoying, and completely prevented any anticipation or tension as you knew the fates of almost every character involved. I didn't care for the overly-stretched-out plot either, personally, as it really seemed to drag in places. However, the insight regarding Falk and Perturabo were nice, but that was about it for me.
That said, many others like it, so different strokes...

So we've got Storm of Iron making the Iron Warriors' fates a foregone conclusion, Fulgrim's "I win at everything ever" thing still going, and that ridiculous plan with the Vohra brothers.

Compare Fulgrim's ascension to some others:


Angel Exterminatus is stricken from my personal canon. Fulgrim gets it too easy, personification of perfection be damned. His ascension ought to have involved at least as much effort and/or sacrifice as his brothers.

I read Prospero Burns and Know No Fear and was thoroughly disappointed by both.

I guess I am more of a Chaos guy as I loved Thousand Sons and The First Heretic.

I'm not reading the spoilers, as I haven't read Betrayer, but to be fair to Fulgrim...

I don't read any BL book looking for Fitzgerald or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I like all the bits where some big guy in power armour goes "For the Emprah!" and then bang bang bang. There's no epic literature in them, but if you want that look elsewhere.

Though I can't read much of them. They're all the same, except you get different coloured ones in the next book. If there isn't a masssive fight every other chapter then I'm bored. 'Horus Rising' I thought was quite good...

BlaxicanX wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Funny thing, most people hate prospero burns because Abnett didn't write the actual burning ?

People hate it because it's a 300 page love-letter to the Space Wolves.

Though, calling it "the adventures of casper hawser would indeed be fitting. Even the Ollonius Pius highlander sub-plot in KNF wasn't so detracting.

I still don't get KNF.

Battle of the abyss, or whatever the ultramarine space ship novel was. It was way to slow, and when action happened it felt rushed.

 Just Dave wrote:
I'm not reading the spoilers, as I haven't read Betrayer, but to be fair to Fulgrim...

Spoiler:

He sacrificed a copious amount of Eldar souls - and souls in general - to Slaanesh, who loves all that jazz.

It did annoy me how all the effort he went to his ascension - such as the Maugetar stone - weren't actually needed in the end though; just made you wonder what the point was.

The Maugetar did help in jump-starting the transformation, and the ritual was already beyond the threshold of no return by the time Perturabo wrestled his energy back. Kind of like a car battery needs more juice to start the car than keep it going.

 Tappers wrote:
I don't read any BL book looking for Fitzgerald or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I like all the bits where some big guy in power armour goes "For the Emprah!" and then bang bang bang. There's no epic literature in them, but if you want that look elsewhere.

Though I can't read much of them. They're all the same, except you get different coloured ones in the next book. If there isn't a masssive fight every other chapter then I'm bored. 'Horus Rising' I thought was quite good...

Agree - i always laugh when people are overly critical about a book based on "some big guy in power armour "...

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Tappers wrote:
I don't read any BL book looking for Fitzgerald or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I like all the bits where some big guy in power armour goes "For the Emprah!" and then bang bang bang. There's no epic literature in them, but if you want that look elsewhere.

Though I can't read much of them. They're all the same, except you get different coloured ones in the next book. If there isn't a masssive fight every other chapter then I'm bored. 'Horus Rising' I thought was quite good...

Agree - i always laugh when people are overly critical about a book based on "some big guy in power armour "...

Just because a work is based on Warhammer 40,000 (or any other property) doesn't mean it doesn't have to be well-written.

Good old Goto again, with The Eldar Prophecy - I can't get past the first 10 pages without lapsing into a coma. I only got it becuase it was missing from my collection.

Of all the horus heresy books I have read I disliked legion
I read through all the heresy books in case I miss anything but legion wasn't great that's the only one though I like the rest. Horus heresy needs more DA!!!