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.

... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
- Marc Gascoigne

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
- Marc Gascoigne

about what exactly?

We are seeing the events that lead up to and allowed the HH to happen. Or are you saying the HH never happened cause its all legend?

Oh no, I would certainly assume the Heresy itself happened, as this is a universally acknowledged aspect of the setting regardless of where you look. Perhaps is just not happened exactly the way a certain novel describes it to you. That is really all that Mr. Gascoigne's quote (full version here) amounts to. It is GW's explanation for any sort of inconsistencies between the official material, including the "Abnettverse".

 Lynata wrote:
Oh no, I would certainly assume the Heresy itself happened, as this is a universally acknowledged aspect of the setting regardless of where you look. Perhaps is just not happened exactly the way a certain novel describes it to you. That is really all that Mr. Gascoigne's quote (full version here) amounts to. It is GW's explanation for any sort of inconsistencies between the official material, including the "Abnettverse".

From the perspective of GW, there is no such thing as Abnettverse. Its just created by people who endlessly complain about consistency.

It is created by the people who write the books you read. Your refusal to accept this will not change the statements of said writers - which you have surely seen often enough by now.
I'm sorry, but I'll be taking the word of a Gav Thorpe over yours any day when it comes to how Games Workshop operates.

I guess that between the two of us, we can only agree to disagree, but I still feel it is important to at least make the public aware of citations such as the one posted above. Especially as they explain why talk about the Abnettverse is not "stupid", given that an author's interpretation of the setting can and will make a novel either more fun or less fun to read for a fan, all depending on how much their ideas overlap.

 Lynata wrote:
It is created by the people who write the books you read. Your refusal to accept this will not change the statements of said writers - which you have surely seen often enough by now.
I'm sorry, but I'll be taking the word of a Gav Thorpe over yours any day when it comes to how Games Workshop operates.

I guess that between the two of us, we can only agree to disagree, but I still feel it is important to at least make the public aware of citations such as the one posted above. Especially as they explain why talk about the Abnettverse is not "stupid", given that an author's interpretation of the setting can and will make a novel either more fun or less fun to read for a fan, all depending on how much their ideas overlap.

That there is no canon. Everyone already knows this. Its up to a person on how they see the 40k verse. I've known about that already and have known this before you and your quote spam came along. I actually don't read the BL novels. Its the rpg's for me.

The author adds things to the verse. I never denied that. But the complaining about the additions are irrelevant as they are accepted by GW and are thus official fluff. This is what I've been saying all along.

I guess one of us has a talent for not expressing what they actually wish to convey, then.

Still, what's wrong with complaints? An author's interpretation of the setting is just as valid a criteria to judge a novel by as his or her writing skill or their creativity with characters and plot are, or the pace and theme of the product. We all like different things, and negative comments, if expressed in a manner explaining the user's issues with the book, can help a fellow reader in choosing their next purchase just as much as positive comments do. One man's bestseller is another's worst book ever - and vice versa.
That, and of course it's a human thing to vent frustration over disappointed expectations.

I have a feeling this is becoming very off-topic, though, so let's better stop. I originally just wanted to throw in a quick counterpoint to what I perceived was a suggestion that the various novels supposedly "depict things as they happened" rather than just one possible version of the tale.

 Lynata wrote:
I guess one of us has a talent for not expressing what they actually wish to convey, then.

English is not my first language. Sorry.

I have a feeling this is becoming very off-topic, though, so let's better stop. I originally just wanted to provide a counterpoint to what I perceived was a suggestion that the various novels supposedly "depict things as they happened" rather than just one possible version of the tale.

Sure.

Agree with you Reznov, Abnett is a fething awesome writer, maybe the best.....
Those who don't understand or appreciate his style of writing should stick to Gav or ADB ....It's more simplistic, I dare to say....
I'mean the guy wroted "Prospero burnes" from the 13th warrior perspective, which was a beautiful book IMHO - and the people were bitching how there isn't much about burning???

Abnett relies too much on tried and tired action movie clichés, plot armour, and can't write endings.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Abnett relies too much on tried and tired action movie clichés, plot armour, and can't write endings.

You mean like every freaking BL author ???

I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

 DarthMarko wrote:
You mean like every freaking BL author ???

None to nearly the same extent of Abnett.

I don't recall the Iron Hands being rendered into guardsmen against the Emperor's Children, like the Word Bearers were against the Ultramarines in Know No Fear.

Well, to me, Abnett writes the books like he does comics....Simple, deep and with a big word count IMHO....But still, I think he is the best BL writer alongside Gav Thorpe......kidding on the latter

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:

Remulus wrote:
I only read the first 4 hh novels, and the first heretic.
And for some reason I wasn't to fond of the 1st 3 books, Loken never really "clicked" with me as a character.

However, I thought The Flight of Eisenhorn and The First Heretic were great, especially the First Heretic.

Oh yah, now about if I think they should end, well I guess i can't really say anything now because I haven't read any of the newer books and so don't know if their quality has gone down, but if they are still good, they should keep going.

However, I wouldn't want them to constantly put off the end of the heresy. Maybe they could write a book about the final battle, and then still go back to previous events.

Flight of the EISENSTEIN, my dear friend, though no harm done, just wanted to point it out. And yes, Loken did feel a little lacking in comparison to some of the other characters in the series, yet he is an essential mention and piece of the series, especially regarding Garro and the future of the Imperium.

That novel was soooooo awesome He pretty much have the Imperium somewhat of a fighting chance along with Garro. The Imperium might have fallen without their heads up...

Corporal_Reznov wrote:
I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

No wonder you haven't read any others.

I read a lot of things, some good, some bad. But it's a rare day that I can't make it through a simple chapter without falling asleep. I picked up Enforcer 6 months ago. About once a week I read another 2 or 3 pages before being completely bored to tears. In that time I've read about 30 other novels.

If nothing else, it is a cure for insomnia.

clively wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:
I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

No wonder you haven't read any others.

I read a lot of things, some good, some bad. But it's a rare day that I can't make it through a simple chapter without falling asleep. I picked up Enforcer 6 months ago. About once a week I read another 2 or 3 pages before being completely bored to tears. In that time I've read about 30 other novels.

If nothing else, it is a cure for insomnia.

Its not that really. I had finished the Shira Calpurnia series and before I could get any other BL books I got hooked onto FFG 40k fluff. I've been reading those ever since. I have recently started branching out by getting my hands on BL audio books and drama's though.

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Agreed.



Edit: Regarding the idea that the series is being dragged out, apparently several authors have said we're about halfway through the series.

Manchu wrote:Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

The very writers of the novels you are referring to seem to disagree with that assessment, as does the statement Marc Gascoigne gave in his position as head editor of the Black Library. You've seen that explanation, and you've seen ADB's posts when you were argueing with him here on dakka.
If you like to see those novels as The One True Account, then that is your choice (we all like to pick our version of the truth) - but not something they are intended to represent. Anything else really just comes down to a state of denial. If anyone is in the position to determine the official status of a product, it is its publisher and/or its creator, not the individual reader (meaning, you).

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Pretty much. There's too much a level of first-person detail for it to be believable "legend" anymore. Visions of Heresy was something you could buy into just being a myth. But two ship ensigns talking about Servitors malfunctioning doesn't come off as such.

 Harriticus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Pretty much. There's too much a level of first-person detail for it to be believable "legend" anymore.

That's how I see it too. So when Talos says he saw Curze's decapitated head and describes the Night Lords' mad-rush afterwards, I take it as the truth.

What pisses me off really is inconsistency through HH...
I'mean primarchs are somewhat sacred (to me), but bouncing them from author to author, makes them rather shallow and contradicting.....

 Lynata wrote:
The very writers of the novels you are referring to seem to disagree with that assessment

Stylistically, no they don't. The HH novels are written in third person narrative, fluctuating between limited and omniscient perspective. The narrative is almost always the action itself rather than an account of action.

 Just Dave wrote:
So when Talos says he saw Curze's decapitated head and describes the Night Lords' mad-rush afterwards, I take it as the truth.

That's not quite what I mean. There is a distinction between credibility of account and accuracy and/of narration. What "Talos says" could be true, not true, credible, or incredible. What Aaron Dembski-Bowden narrates Talos doing or feeling at any given moment is simply true unless otherwise stated in the narrative (e.g., "it was all a dream").

Manchu wrote:Stylistically, no they don't.

You keep telling yourself that, yet all this amounts to is how you wish it were, and you remain in conflict with what the creator of the content you cling to has declared. The style in which the narration is delivered is entirely irrelevant if the writer says it is just one of many possibilities. The tale of Hansel & Gretel is "written in third person narrative" as well, "fluctuating between limited and omniscient perspective", yet that doesn't make it any more true. Same about the Bible, or at least some versions of it.

"remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate"
"anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths"

The "we are reporting back from a time" line may be important, as it renders the fiction ... fiction. Almost as if that book you hold in your hands is an in-universe product. Or perhaps rather as if the author would exist both in the 41st millennium as well as the real world. It is "a lens through which we can see the setting", as it's been said. Can, not must.
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example. Some of it can be ignored or explained away, but it gets so much easier once we recognise that it's really all about cherrypicking possibilities.

You already had this debate with Aaron Dembski-Bowden himself, who worked on this very novel series. I won't claim to be better informed than him. If a conversation with the author himself was not enough (although you did seem to be convinced back then, albeit somewhat sulky), then I guess there's nothing that I could do about it. I do remain confused, however, as to how this is all supposed to fit together in your mind. Surely you must be aware of the contradiction between your position and that of the very management of the franchise by now?

 Lynata wrote:
The "we are reporting back from a time" line may be important, as it renders the fiction ... fiction. Almost as if that book you hold in your hands is an in-universe product.

The HH novels are clearly not accounts from an in-setting perspective. This is one of the reason's I told Aaron personally that I thought his blog post on this subject was critically bankrupt.

 Manchu wrote:
Even clarified here to myself and Lynata, I still think it's bollocks. You yourself just posted that GW is intentionally vague about this "everything/nothing is canon" mentality, going so far as to scold you for even discussing it -- and yet at the same time, you insist this is more than a business scheme.

The position these guys keep taking is a marketing position. It's a lack of commitment to the product being sold. It has nothing to do with how the books are actually written. Abnett, McNeill, and Dembski-Bowden are not "reporting" on anything. (The idea that "repoting" is what makes something fiction is nonsense.) They are telling a story. That story, written in the style they (and/or their editors) have chosen, exists only in its telling. The line "Horus glared at Angron" is not one possible interpretation -- it is the "fact" of the matter. The narration is the place where the action exists; it is NOT an account or report of the action.

Personally I'm getting fed up with the recent spate of digital-only/hardcover-only/trade-size only volumes. That needs to come to a screeching halt.

I have enjoyed most of the series, despite the wild variance in writing quality and the not-infrequent time-line inconsistencies. My faves so far include A Thousand Sons, Fulgrim, Mechanicum and Flight of the Eisenstein.

Manchu wrote:The HH novels are clearly not accounts from an in-setting perspective.

No, but they are fiction that should apparently be treated as fiction, not some sort of live-feed.
We both know that clear contradictions exist - sometimes even deliberately so - which means they cannot possibly be "fact". And if they are not fact, who says that the rest of the book is? Once you acknowledge the existence of faulty information, accuracy as a whole is called into question, at least when you are defending a position like "it's 100% true". And not just for that one source but for the entire medium.

The issue can only be resolved by retcon or by acknowledging deviating interpretations. And like it or not, but GW opted for the latter. It is easier to manage and allows the authors greater artistic licence - and according to Gav Thorpe, it even allows us as gamers to treat our own ideas with the very same validity as any official product.
Quite a large number of popular novels may have never seen the light of day would the studio truly enforce a policy similar to the one of, say, Battletech. And who knows which changes would have been enacted on the Horus Heresy books.

You know me; I'm a huge addict to consistency when it comes to settings as well, as I think it ultimately results in a richter experience. But there is no use in wilfully denying what we're being told by the people who write that stuff. We have to come to terms with the situation. It took me quite a while, but I think I've managed now, in spite of the expressions of disappointment I'm still throwing around when topics I feel passionate about are coming up.

Contradiction exists because some combination of the authors and editors are not concerned with/not doing a good job with consistency. It does not indicate that the HH novels are a biased "account" among other possible accounts of the events. The narrative style all of them use, however, indicates that what we are reading is indeed "what is happening" in the story -- i.e., there is not some other, equally valid story describing the same events.

When you admit that what the books are telling us depends on the individual author, then there is no overarching accuracy and - indeed - the reports are biased depending on the individual writer and their preference for the various elements of storytelling. In terms of content and representation, something like, say, plot armour is exactly the same as the degree of consistency.

You've got to realise how this debate looks to me.
Author: "My book shows a possibility."
You: "No! Your book shows the truth!"