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 think thats the main problem with other authors. - They (try to) make marines likeable, which is wrong.

The whole idea I've liked is that as Space Marines become superhuman, living weapons for Teh Emprah, they sacrifice their humanity as a result.

1068SCP wrote:
I read The Emperor's Gift. Good stuff! The only problems are that it suffers from some pacing issues, and I don't think its ideas could really be continued in another book, but it does show me that it is possible to write an interesting Gray Knight novel.

The best part is that the protagonist is really kind of a dick, and the author knows it. Hyperion is probably the least likeable loyalist Space Marine perspective I've ever read, yet I can still sympathize with his conflicts.

 LoneLictor wrote:
ADB says he writes Space Marine characters as though they're autistic.

I wouldn't be surprised. Hyperion's inner monologue is very robotic and emotionless, even when he is outwardly volatile.

Autistic people aren't robotic and emotionless, they have trouble with cognitive empathy, but they can still feel sad if someone close to them is sad.

And you thought Hyperion was unlikeable, really? I thought he was one of the book's most likeable characters, the Grey Knights in general were more likeable than the Space Wolves or many in the Inquisition.

1068SCP wrote:
I read The Emperor's Gift. Good stuff! The only problems are that it suffers from some pacing issues, and I don't think its ideas could really be continued in another book, but it does show me that it is possible to write an interesting Gray Knight novel.

The best part is that the protagonist is really kind of a dick, and the author knows it. Hyperion is probably the least likeable loyalist Space Marine perspective I've ever read, yet I can still sympathize with his conflicts.

 LoneLictor wrote:
ADB says he writes Space Marine characters as though they're autistic.

I wouldn't be surprised. Hyperion's inner monologue is very robotic and emotionless, even when he is outwardly volatile.

Agree,dick with big "D"...but still has some inner conflicts and was defiant as hell ...but grandmaster was the Dick Dickenson in that book....

Also until that book I always thought that GK were adeptus astartes first, then "in service to the inquisition"....

Writing space marines as "autistic" actually is the best idea imo. These are people trained from birth for nothing but merciless war, are brainwashed, and more or less only spend time around their own kind. Thus they have severe issues understanding empathy, love, emotion, etc..

 Harriticus wrote:
Writing space marines as "autistic" actually is the best idea imo. These are people trained from birth for nothing but merciless war, are brainwashed, and more or less only spend time around their own kind. Thus they have severe issues understanding empathy, love, emotion, etc..

Yes - they are made that way, but sometimes it's hard to connect with them on that basis...

Or rather, most of the time. Only the members that spend more time around human beings would really have any hope of understanding human emotions. And these are quite rare.

 Garvy wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
Writing space marines as "autistic" actually is the best idea imo. These are people trained from birth for nothing but merciless war, are brainwashed, and more or less only spend time around their own kind. Thus they have severe issues understanding empathy, love, emotion, etc..

Yes - they are made that way, but sometimes it's hard to connect with them on that basis...

Why would you want to connect to them?

Because writing a protagonist that no one cares about does not make for a good book.

 Melissia wrote:
Because writing a protagonist that no one cares about does not make for a good book.

That's why using loyalist marines as main characters is usualy a bad idea.

Space Marines are chosen as main characters because they are a stereotypical masculine wish fulfillment fantasy: the ultra strong, supremely competent, long lived, fast, square jawed action hero. The problem is they are portrayed as if they are your standard Hollywood action hero rather than a more dehumanized warrior monk.

 KingDeath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Because writing a protagonist that no one cares about does not make for a good book.

That's why using loyalist marines as main characters is usualy a bad idea.

Negative. It's why using hack in-house authors who can't create a powerful and distant hero that we can still care about is a bad idea. There are plenty of instances in literature and entertainment of characters that are too far removed from the standard deviation of humanity to really be likeable, or to really share much with us. But we still care about them, about their struggles and about what happens to them.

Space Marines should be different from regular people. They shouldn't be having the kind of casual banter we'd expect from other soldiers, or the frat-boy interactions I see too often in Black Library novels (Dan Abnett, I'm looking at you ಠ_ಠ) but the conflicts we see in them should also be appropriate and believable, and the resolutions sensible and logical. The fall of Horus is the perfect example of a poorly executed character. He didn't act like a regal, distant demi-god or even an experienced and calculating military leader. He kind of came across as scheming high-schooler. And there was no actual conflict presented to him at all, that I could find. He was all "I love my dad, and I love the Imperium" and then the next minute he was all "I hate you guys, you're not the boss of me!"

Horus was an excellent opportunity to create an internal conflict between his hunger for glory, power and recognition and his loyalty and love for his father and the Imperium. The plot could have focused on the interactions between the crusading forces and the budding government of Terra (instead of some stupid magic sword) and key incidents used to make Horus feel slighted, unappreciated and used, stoking the fires of his greed for glory and recognition and slowly turning his love for the Imperium into hatred.

But that's hard work. Creating realistic and interesting characters that have believable internal conflicts takes a lot of work, and writing some crappy two dimensional character who does what he does without the need for explanation or set-up in the plot is much easier. Then you just fill the gaps with some bolter-porn and you're set.

 Kaldor wrote:

Negative. It's why using hack in-house authors who can't create a powerful and distant hero that we can still care about is a bad idea. There are plenty of instances in literature and entertainment of characters that are too far removed from the standard deviation of humanity to really be likeable, or to really share much with us. But we still care about them, about their struggles and about what happens to them.

Space Marines should be different from regular people. They shouldn't be having the kind of casual banter we'd expect from other soldiers, or the frat-boy interactions I see too often in Black Library novels (Dan Abnett, I'm looking at you ಠ_ಠ) but the conflicts we see in them should also be appropriate and believable, and the resolutions sensible and logical. The fall of Horus is the perfect example of a poorly executed character. He didn't act like a regal, distant demi-god or even an experienced and calculating military leader. He kind of came across as scheming high-schooler. And there was no actual conflict presented to him at all, that I could find. He was all "I love my dad, and I love the Imperium" and then the next minute he was all "I hate you guys, you're not the boss of me!"

Horus was an excellent opportunity to create an internal conflict between his hunger for glory, power and recognition and his loyalty and love for his father and the Imperium. The plot could have focused on the interactions between the crusading forces and the budding government of Terra (instead of some stupid magic sword) and key incidents used to make Horus feel slighted, unappreciated and used, stoking the fires of his greed for glory and recognition and slowly turning his love for the Imperium into hatred.

Well the fall of Lucifer stems from what might be termed childish jealousy depending on what version of the tale one goes by. In some, Lucifer desires to be loved the most by God but failing that then turns 180 to hating God. However I agree Horus could have been better portrayed.

What should have really been more portrayed was the fundamental tension between the Primarchs and Legions vs. the normal humans' civilian power structure. The Primarchs and Space Marines were out fighting and conquering but they were never really meant to be the rulers and administrators of the Imperium as a whole. That kind of military aristocracy and warlordism is what the Primarchs ultimately wanted, and what the subsequent CSM got. In a sense the Heresy can be viewed as the struggle for civilian control of the Imperium and its military.

It's telling that the best marine stories I can think off regularly have them alongside a regular human in some form.

For example, ADB's Helsreach and the assorted guardsmen. Or his Night Lords series with Septimus.


To be honest, I'm alright with how Horus begins his betrayal, but that's a different subject and I may have invented my own narrative rationalisation around it all.

Just wondering, are there any other Graham McNeil books on par with Storm of Iron? He really got it right with tone, pacing, and everything else in that book, and then every other piece I've read from him just hasn't hit that same good spot. I've heard good things about A Thousand Sons.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Autistic people aren't robotic and emotionless, they have trouble with cognitive empathy, but they can still feel sad if someone close to them is sad.

I'm sorry if I was off the mark there.

What I'm trying to say is, Hyperion really comes across as having little emotional range or empathy in his inner monologue, even when his actions are dramatic.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And you thought Hyperion was unlikeable, really? I thought he was one of the book's most likeable characters, the Grey Knights in general were more likeable than the Space Wolves or many in the Inquisition.

I think he's admirable in some ways, but he tends to be self-aggrandizing and he doesn't learn much from his mistakes. For example, even after his psychic recklessness got Sothis killed, he decides to enter the bodies of all the Grey Knights after fighting Angron when he barely had any juice left.

I guess unlikeable is the wrong word, but he's definitely one of the more flawed heroes I've seen in a BL work.

 Kaldor wrote:

 KingDeath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Because writing a protagonist that no one cares about does not make for a good book.

That's why using loyalist marines as main characters is usualy a bad idea.

Negative. It's why using hack in-house authors who can't create a powerful and distant hero that we can still care about is a bad idea. There are plenty of instances in literature and entertainment of characters that are too far removed from the standard deviation of humanity to really be likeable, or to really share much with us. But we still care about them, about their struggles and about what happens to them.

Space Marines should be different from regular people. They shouldn't be having the kind of casual banter we'd expect from other soldiers, or the frat-boy interactions I see too often in Black Library novels (Dan Abnett, I'm looking at you ಠ_ಠ) but the conflicts we see in them should also be appropriate and believable, and the resolutions sensible and logical. The fall of Horus is the perfect example of a poorly executed character. He didn't act like a regal, distant demi-god or even an experienced and calculating military leader. He kind of came across as scheming high-schooler. And there was no actual conflict presented to him at all, that I could find. He was all "I love my dad, and I love the Imperium" and then the next minute he was all "I hate you guys, you're not the boss of me!"

Horus was an excellent opportunity to create an internal conflict between his hunger for glory, power and recognition and his loyalty and love for his father and the Imperium. The plot could have focused on the interactions between the crusading forces and the budding government of Terra (instead of some stupid magic sword) and key incidents used to make Horus feel slighted, unappreciated and used, stoking the fires of his greed for glory and recognition and slowly turning his love for the Imperium into hatred.

But that's hard work. Creating realistic and interesting characters that have believable internal conflicts takes a lot of work, and writing some crappy two dimensional character who does what he does without the need for explanation or set-up in the plot is much easier. Then you just fill the gaps with some bolter-porn and you're set.

And this is the perfect example of why I always tell people that there is better fiction out there than the Horus Heresy series. Personally I can't stand any of the Black Library novels because every single one of them that I have read fall into a similar vein. They could have written them much better than they did but for whatever reason decided not to.

And I also don't like how the Horus Heresy books change long established backstory because some BL author sees things a bit different than they have been portrayed to be for quite a few years. They should leave the backstory alone. I like the Emperor as a man...not a conglomeration of a bunch of lame shaman spirits. The idea that a single man got to that level of power all on his own is a far more compelling story than the idea that he is a bunch of dudes thrown together to make Emperor Soup.

And I also don't like how the Horus Heresy books change long established backstory because some BL author sees things a bit different than they have been portrayed to be for quite a few years. They should leave the backstory alone. I like the Emperor as a man...not a conglomeration of a bunch of lame shaman spirits. The idea that a single man got to that level of power all on his own is a far more compelling story than the idea that he is a bunch of dudes thrown together to make Emperor Soup.

Thats not the BL, thats OLD canon. Its been like that for a while now. Your complaint is valid, your example is not.




I (unlike most people here it seems) like the way the HH has been covered so far.

Ive enjoyed the SM books (not amazing but Ive enjoyed them)



The only "Literary Gripes" I have with 40k is the "After following these people for the entire book, they all die and loose anyways" that a LOT of the Imperial Guard novels do. I fething HATE that. It feels like I just wasted my time reading the story. I want to see the heroes prevail, I dont actually enjoy seeing the Heroes lose in the end. (Note, Saul Travitz and the death of the loyalist in the HH are a special case)


Some of the books on my bad list.
15 Hours: Spend the entire book following this guy who dies exactly on the 15 hour marker? The feth? GREAT Intro to 40k though

Desert Raiders: See this Tallaran Regiment finally start working together and then the Tyranids conquer the planet and nom nom the Tallarans....

Dead Man Walking: Tooth and nail struggle of the Imperial Guard DESPERATELY trying to win the first victory the IG will ever have against the Necrons (at that point in time) coming on the verge of victory and then they... lose? Abandon the planet making the whole operation pointless and a waste of men. Good story, hate the end.

Imperial Glory: This book REALLY sits bad on me. The regiment on the verge of retiring, this disgraced Major (CPT? I dont rememer) who finally becomes the officer he should be at the tipy end, The Scumbag Major who stopped fighting after he made honor guard finds his fighting strength again and takes commands ... so many great events and than... the Major who starts to take command regains his honor just in time to die seconds later, the Regimental Flag is lost, the planet is [will be]conquered, The MAJ/CPT main character dies seconds from extraction, EVERYONE DIES
I mean the story was a great read but damn it talking about a waste



Oh and to clarifty, I actually REALLY like the ending for the SM book with the Silver Skulls vs the Red Corsairs. Thats kind of an unique case though. Thats a special one because BOTH sides emerge "victorious." Huron Blackhart lived up to his excellent command potentional by able to accomplish all of his goals and killing the SM Captain (destroying that guy) but the Silver Skulls did a good job defending their terroity and preventing things from being far WORSE than they could have been. Both sides could easily walk away with their heads held up high feeling they won (minus the dead CPT but thats okay, it would have disliked if he survived the encounter with a Special Character, more so if he did well against him)

 Galdos wrote:

And I also don't like how the Horus Heresy books change long established backstory because some BL author sees things a bit different than they have been portrayed to be for quite a few years. They should leave the backstory alone. I like the Emperor as a man...not a conglomeration of a bunch of lame shaman spirits. The idea that a single man got to that level of power all on his own is a far more compelling story than the idea that he is a bunch of dudes thrown together to make Emperor Soup.

Thats not the BL, thats OLD canon. Its been like that for a while now. Your complaint is valid, your example is not.




I (unlike most people here it seems) like the way the HH has been covered so far.

Ive enjoyed the SM books (not amazing but Ive enjoyed them)



The only "Literary Gripes" I have with 40k is the "After following these people for the entire book, they all die and loose anyways" that a LOT of the Imperial Guard novels do. I fething HATE that. It feels like I just wasted my time reading the story. I want to see the heroes prevail, I dont actually enjoy seeing the Heroes lose in the end. (Note, Saul Travitz and the death of the loyalist in the HH are a special case)


Some of the books on my bad list.
15 Hours: Spend the entire book following this guy who dies exactly on the 15 hour marker? The feth? GREAT Intro to 40k though

Desert Raiders: See this Tallaran Regiment finally start working together and then the Tyranids conquer the planet and nom nom the Tallarans....

Dead Man Walking: Tooth and nail struggle of the Imperial Guard DESPERATELY trying to win the first victory the IG will ever have against the Necrons (at that point in time) coming on the verge of victory and then they... lose? Abandon the planet making the whole operation pointless and a waste of men. Good story, hate the end.

Imperial Glory: This book REALLY sits bad on me. The regiment on the verge of retiring, this disgraced Major (CPT? I dont rememer) who finally becomes the officer he should be at the tipy end, The Scumbag Major who stopped fighting after he made honor guard finds his fighting strength again and takes commands ... so many great events and than... the Major who starts to take command regains his honor just in time to die seconds later, the Regimental Flag is lost, the planet is [will be]conquered, The MAJ/CPT main character dies seconds from extraction, EVERYONE DIES
I mean the story was a great read but damn it talking about a waste



Oh and to clarifty, I actually REALLY like the ending for the SM book with the Silver Skulls vs the Red Corsairs. Thats kind of an unique case though. Thats a special one because BOTH sides emerge "victorious." Huron Blackhart lived up to his excellent command potentional by able to accomplish all of his goals and killing the SM Captain (destroying that guy) but the Silver Skulls did a good job defending their terroity and preventing things from being far WORSE than they could have been. Both sides could easily walk away with their heads held up high feeling they won (minus the dead CPT but thats okay, it would have disliked if he survived the encounter with a Special Character, more so if he did well against him)

How do you figure? My Epic Space Marine books have the Emperor being a single human being, not a guy made up of a bunch of shaman....and it's copyright 1992...sooo...how old are you talking? Ever since I've played this game he has been a single human being...that is until the BL came around...all of a sudden he's some conglomeration of shaman?...wtf?

Are you talking about the fluff being Rogue Trader? Because I played Rogue Trader when it was the only 40k available and I don't remember that at all.

I'm fairly certain that story is rather new compared to rogue trader and 2nd ed 40k.

1068SCP wrote:
Just wondering, are there any other Graham McNeil books on par with Storm of Iron? He really got it right with tone, pacing, and everything else in that book, and then every other piece I've read from him just hasn't hit that same good spot. I've heard good things about A Thousand Sons.

A Thousand Sons is probably my favorite BL novel, honestly.

The life of the Primarch Magnus and his fall was compelling, and seeing through the eyes of Ahzek Ahriman before the Heresy, now primarily known for being a ruthless, evil sorcerer who would kill anyone or do anything for knowledge, was very interesting.

While I have heard dissenting opinions on Magnus as a character (Some found him unlikeable due to his arrogance, but it was exactly his hubris that made me enjoy him as a character), most seem to agree on Ahriman's portrayal, based on what I've seen.

I'm sorry if I was off the mark there.

What I'm trying to say is, Hyperion really comes across as having little emotional range or empathy in his inner monologue, even when his actions are dramatic.

Ftr I can see the autistic comparison, Hyperion IMO clearly shows emotional range and empathy, but he has trouble acknowledging or expressing it, and guessing at the feelings of human beings especially.

I think he's admirable in some ways, but he tends to be self-aggrandizing and he doesn't learn much from his mistakes. For example, even after his psychic recklessness got Sothis killed, he decides to enter the bodies of all the Grey Knights after fighting Angron when he barely had any juice left.

I guess unlikeable is the wrong word, but he's definitely one of the more flawed heroes I've seen in a BL work.

To be fair, he was seriously out of it then, unable to think clearly due to the magnitude of what has happened.

How do you figure? My Epic Space Marine books have the Emperor being a single human being, not a guy made up of a bunch of shaman....and it's copyright 1992...sooo...how old are you talking? Ever since I've played this game he has been a single human being...that is until the BL came around...all of a sudden he's some conglomeration of shaman?...wtf?

Are you talking about the fluff being Rogue Trader? Because I played Rogue Trader when it was the only 40k available and I don't remember that at all.

I'm fairly certain that story is rather new compared to rogue trader and 2nd ed 40k.

Okay in that case Old is relative lol. To me its old but I came in like half a year before 5th Edition came out.

So the entire time I personally have known 40k (which is before they started the Horus Heresy book series) its been like that.


I have no idea when it was changed or where it was changed, I just known that by the end of 4th, it was the combing of Shamans and the HH did not start that. That all I meant when I said old, that it wasnt changed during the HH books

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
And this is the perfect example of why I always tell people that there is better fiction out there than the Horus Heresy series. Personally I can't stand any of the Black Library novels because every single one of them that I have read fall into a similar vein. They could have written them much better than they did but for whatever reason decided not to.

And I also don't like how the Horus Heresy books change long established backstory because some BL author sees things a bit different than they have been portrayed to be for quite a few years. They should leave the backstory alone. I like the Emperor as a man...not a conglomeration of a bunch of lame shaman spirits. The idea that a single man got to that level of power all on his own is a far more compelling story than the idea that he is a bunch of dudes thrown together to make Emperor Soup.

Lol.

The Emperor being the conglomeration of a bunch of "lame shaman spirits" is from the Realm of Chaos books, Rogue Trader (First edition 40k) "official" GW books, not the Horus Heresy, which has yet to mention the Emperor's origins at all (Beyond him being supar old).

The Horus Heresy series barely mentions the Emperor's origins, only going so far as to show us he's really old (When he fought the Void Dragon in ancient times).

Interesting Void Dragon because after all of these years this is the first I've heard of it coming from Rogue Trader days. But that could be because I never owned the Realm of Chaos books.

Can you tell me what page that is on please?