Know No Fear discussion – Teasers and Spoilers

[Apologist]

This was hands down my favourite Horus Heresy novel. I have no idea why people are saying that they don't like it, or that it's underwhelming. It's got a lot of action, because it's about the Battle of Calth!

Yes – it's funny; one of the criticisms I have with the opening trilogy is that the Isstvan battles are covered fairly lightly, which doesn't get the size and impact of the Heresy across to me. Later novels, short stories and audio books in the series have gone some way to help build the sense of scale for me.

Know No Fear does what it says on the tin: it covers the battle for Calth, but while it's action-packed, it doesn't descend into repetition. Abnett's skill at writing kept the interest and pace up for me, and that's speaking as no great fan of battle scenes in general.

I also feel that because it's the next major book advancing the plot it is also responsible for starting a lot of new plot threads. At least we know a certain John is still roaming around...

Absolutely – there's a lot of springboard material for short stories there...

[Lextheimpaler]

I have to say after having time to digest what ive read that i loved this book. Absoluterly loved the whole going into the mind of a dreadnaught bit. Wish he was included a bit more with the champion though. Guillimans charactor really got to shine, see he isnt just a stuck up prigg. Love it hope they follow it on.

[Xisor]

No mention of...

Oll's unidentified god?

His ability to live and die? To reincarnate?

His pun/name? (Aul' person)

His access to things & knowledge from 44,000years ago? (6k prior to the Emperor)

The objective of those who're there to bring about an unspecified god for 'the illuminated people who control almost everything in the war against Chaos??

That ultimate sacrifice of those special people at the moment of the Emperor's death to cause the Star Child?

His being Ollanius (the Pious) Persson? Also an Argonaut.

Dan's woven some serious 'old jazz' into this.

Also the book was very good. The Antrodamicus sequence blew me away. Wazza: if you'll pardon the expression: bolter porn only occurs for about 6-10 pages throughout the book. Non-stop action/thrill/buildup sure, but vastly it ain't bolter porn. Though a tiny amount qualifies for that most vexing of phrases.

Tremendously enjoyable book. More a well woven series of vignettes and shorts than a proper novel. But that's explained RIGHT AT THE START. Perhaps SunTzu missed that...'primer/explanation'.

Anyway, three thumbs up.

[SunTzu]

Tremendously enjoyable book. More a well woven series of vignettes and shorts than a proper novel. But that's explained RIGHT AT THE START. Perhaps SunTzu missed that...'primer/explanation'.

Or maybe I didn't miss it, but simply thought the book suffered because of it, explained or otherwise.

I know you and I disagree on what makes a good book, but there is no need for snide back-handed comments to belittle my opinion.

[Wazzahamma]

Wazza: if you'll pardon the expression: bolter porn only occurs for about 6-10 pages throughout the book. Non-stop action/thrill/buildup sure, but vastly it ain't bolter porn. Though a tiny amount qualifies for that most vexing of phrases.

Pardoned, Xis

I'm going to ask for a pardoning myself for this tangent I'm about to go on. I think one of my main problems is that there doesn't seem to be any shared definition of what "bolter porn" means, which is why it can be used like such a blunt and nasty weapon, mostly to dismiss action scenes without any regard or exploration for the quality of those scenes.

In film, porn is regarded as a low form of cinema because it is entirely visceral, without any intellectual content. Horror and Chic-Flix get lumped into the same basket; all of these genres are (generally, there are exceptions) designed to elicit physical responses in the audience rather than engage them mentally (terror, tears and uh...you know). So the term 'bolter porn' implies that any action scene must be equally mindless and of the lowest common denominator.

Which I think is not only unfair but just not true. Alan Moore writes action with layers of subtext and meaning, while Zack Snyder manages to turn them into 'porn' on the big screen. All the action I've read from Dan Abnett so far has been written to express a point other than for its own sake. There are always reasons for every fight scene, something he's trying to express to the reader. Taking Horus Rising or example, not one action scene in that is gratuitous. Each one teaches us more about the plot or the characters.

I'm hoping that KNF is cut from the same cloth.

[Nineswords]

Well, I got hold of the audiobook. Great for some of the long drives I have to do and listened to it over the course of a few days. I guess my perspective is slightly different simply because Gareth Amstrong's narration as always was absolutely superb. I won't add much except as much to say that I very much enjoyed it - Dan pretty much captured the Ultramarine's as I had them in my head and although I felt there were a few too many characters, his description of Calth's orbital platforms and the Noo-spherical grid was totally spot on and very convincing. I guess most people miss that appreciation for detail, but it's stuff like this that really makes me appreciate the 4(3)0k universe.I've

PS I've just clocked why Oll Pearson will be a pivotal character!

[Xisor]

Or maybe I didn't miss it, but simply thought the book suffered because of it, explained or otherwise.

I know you and I disagree on what makes a good book, but there is no need for snide back-handed comments to belittle my opinion.

Noted, I hope you'll appreciate my apology.

That said, though belittling's way off the mark for what I should be up to here, I do find it difficult to see how you sustain the rest of the criticism beyond a fundamental...difference with the book.

Perhaps I'm misreading things, but the 'lack of character development' can only be applied so far when the realisation is made that, vastly, most characters will début and die within, perhaps two or, on a good run, three appearances.

Similarly, I can't help but echo the sentiment that it appears you're writing off action sequences and set-pieces because of what they are. Now, I'll grant I should've made that more plain, but in all honesty I didn't actually intend to attack you (or your opinion) - so having attacked you, I do feel a bit silly. Still, the essence of the attack still...persists, even though it should've never went that way: the outlook on it seems really...divorced from sensible expectation.

Having said that, I can take criticisms of the action sequences and set-pieces dominating: I despise the approach taken in Brothers of the Snake for perhaps two-fold reasons - firstly it builds a preposterous world that rubbishes a lot of other topics (the infamous 'stand in a line for victory' sequences), secondly that I found it didn't generate the interesting setup for what's being described and examined...which I presume was what was intended.

So to that degree, sure: had the action scenes actually been bolter porn*, then yes. But I don't think (m)any were. Of course, by that point we're back to agreeing on whether a particular 'one thing' is good or bad, which having no specifics in mind or laid down, leaves me in a bit of an impotent position to continue discussion.

To reiterate: My apology for the comment, but I do find the outlook you speak of...somewhat difficult to get my head around <- that was what I would've preferred to get at, but didn't.

* Again: I take Promethean Sun as my example. Characters who go very little distance, for very little narrative effect or poignancy, but nevertheless are described in long-winded, tedious 'breathtaking' detail.

[SunTzu]

To reiterate: My apology for the comment, but I do find the outlook you speak of...somewhat difficult to get my head around <- that was what I would've preferred to get at, but didn't.

OK, so, there's a few things here. (Ultimately I strongly suspect we'll end up at the "you and I simply like very different kinds of books" conclusion again, but for information's sake, here's my thought processes).

First of all, try reading this story, though before you click the link beware that some of the sentence structures aren't very good. I'll wait. ... Finished? Did you enjoy it? I'm going to guess not... that story is legendarily bad. I mean, it's eye-gougingly awful. Does me warning you beforehand excuse all its failures and miraculously make it a good book? Clearly not. Likewise with KNF (though nowhere near as bad)... yes, it's a story about a battle, and that has certain implications and limitations... but IMO to qualify as a good book in my opinion, it has to transcend them, it's not excused by them. Necropolis (also by Abnett) was also a story about a battle but had a thousand times more character development, tension and interesting drama than KNF, so it can be done (and Abnett can do it). That's why I still feel it's reasonable to criticise this novel, even knowing that it's "a story about a battle" and warned that there will be a whole bunch of different threads alongside one another.

Secondly, I think my "bolter porn" comment has been overplayed. It's true that I do think there is too much vacuous so-called action that is over-described in an attempt to elicit an unlikely viceral response while ultimately remaining devoid of meaningful consequence (yeah... "bolter porn" is more succinct), and as an example of that I'd give page 114 (and in fact that entire sequence, 20 pages or so of it!) as exhibit A... seventeen kilometres!... twelve kilometres!... thirty-five thousand dead!... yawn. In my opinion, the excessive gratuitous detail becomes tedious very rapidly and the constant insistence on providing very precise supposedly-impressive-sounding numbers ("forty-nine lift ships and one hundred and sixty-eight small lighters and ferries") ends up feeling to me more like a grocery list than what is presumably intended, which is the impression of epic scale. Thus I conclude it's bolter porn - it's not simply that I dismiss any fight sequence as bolter porn (I wouldn't read BL books at all if I did). But, with all that said - it's far from the only criticism I've made.

"Show don't tell" is the other major one, as I explained in my first post in this thread - and for me it's probably the biggest failure of the book, far more than the bolter porn (and it's so unlike Abnett). I refer the interested reader back to my earlier comments as for why I think that ("We are friends", "Guilliman is clever", "Kor Phaeron tried to convert him", etc).

But the most mystifying feature of the book was the plot threads where nothing important happened. Either I managed to miss something entirely, or the Contemptor Dreadnought woke up (actually a promising start, particularly with the fear comments), went back to sleep, woke up again after a crash, possibly shot a few Word Bearers... and that was it. You could have cut it from the book and it wouldn't have been missed... and that's far from the only example, Oll being another candidate (he might be important in a future book... OK, put him in a future book), or the "thirteen Eldar" password which achieved precisely nothing, and so on. If that kind of stuff had all been cut, it would have left room to expand all the characterisation - and suddenly there's room, in a book about a battle, for the stuff that apparently books about battles can't have.

And above all else, I'd emphasise (since it seems to have been missed when I said it before) that the book wasn't entirely without redeeming features IMO. I thought pretty much all of the scenes featuring daemons was brilliant, they were superbly unreal and other-worldly, I wanted much more of that. I felt Lorgar was also quite well-portrayed, in contrast to what I thought was a very poor rendition of Guilliman. I thought the infantry battle in space was a pretty interesting and unusual sequence and an example of how action can be written well; if anything it ended too quickly for my tastes. The sergeant being punished for planning how to fight marines seemed to me quite a clever touch (the red helmet thing was a bit cheesy, but it was so minor I can overlook it). It's just that... I can't think of much else? And that's why I was disappointed by this book.

So yeah. I should probably have left it as "you and I simply like different books" but since people seemed to be labouring under the misconception that "bolter porn" was my only criticism, there's the rest of it.

[Xisor]

So yeah. I should probably have left it as "you and I simply like different books" but since people seemed to be labouring under the misconception that "bolter porn" was my only criticism, there's the rest of it.

Not in the slightest!

I agree with more'n a few aspects. Especially the 'show don't tell'. "Kor Phaeron tried to convert him" was such a small point that it almost slid right past me. It certainly fell from my notice almost as soon as I'd moved on to the rest of that sequence, but yes: show us! did scream out (even if only for a few seconds before the thought was shouted down by other thoughts). And now that that's mentioned highlighted for me, I can't escape it.

To a large extent, I feel much more precisely that I was correct in my likening the book to Flight of the Eisenstein (for my tastes). I rushed through it. Raced, even. Enjoyed the ride. But contrasting it to other books? There aren't quite so many bits I feel were so strong as the 'impression' I was left with running through and out of the book - now that I've stopped running, the impression's dying quite quickly.

Amusingly, and I think this is perhaps where the difference in our aesthetic preferences come to the fore: the Page 114 sequence, if my memory serves me rightly, was perhaps my most enduring/favourite sequence from the book. And, contrastingly, I felt Abnett's daemons were...really lacklustre. Especially compared to the Samus-fight in Horus Rising. The daemons didn't have 'of the warp' about them, they were...physical but in a way that seemed a bit like Doctor Who mutants/rubber-monsters. They always felt much more of an 'unexpectedly powerful' threat more than an other-worldly/ethereal threat. (Well, except for the Rane[?]'s Daemonette, but that was less so.)

Having said that, the Erebus-on-the-plateau bit was very neatly done.

Again, when it comes to the 'go nowhere threads': I don't mind that. (Though I also doubt that's a revelation for you!) I think the story benefits from 'smaller' glimpses of things happening throughout it. Worms-eye view, I believe the term might be. Their inclusion, for me, makes the presented world more real, more plausible. I'd be sympathetic to the idea that it's something of a token effort though; I can't deny that I've been won over by mere trinkets & gimmicks before.

To draw it another way: comparison. Two novels which spring to mind for this are Titanicus and The Outcast Dead.

In Titanicus, there's many a thread. It shows Abnett doing massive battles on a scale not usually seen in 40k, it shows an attention to the setting and it shows an impressive amount of innovation and, unsurprisingly as it's Dan, a lot of trend-setting/trail-blazing too. I'd happily hold Titanicus up as one of Dan's best novels. (Though I've not read the Ghosts books. [And I'd hold Brothers of the Snake up as the opposite.])

With The Outcast Dead, however, we've got a coherent 'core' plot. A big mystery. Yet it's burdened with ancillary characters - a Navigator who gets no detail, a bizarre trio of senior astropaths, a bloated cast of Space Marines who're not strictly important, yet make up the more/most worthy characters in the novel. There's a sideline with Captain Japan, there's the 'villain' of the piece who seems so incidental and, like Oll, is perhaps obviously 'best left for another book'.

To that end, I think it might be fair to say Know No Fear is something of a combination of the two books, would you perhaps agree on that? (That is: am I understanding your outlook rightly?) That : its failings stem from extraneous characters and from missed beats/dropped balls on the big action set-pieces, whilst the scenes involving the little people simply aren't...involving enough?

Again, I'm inclined to revise my thoughts, again in line with "it's like Flight of the Eisenstein" - I really enjoyed it. As in, really, but (and this is a big but), the things I liked about it aren't necessarily things that are good. (Or that I'd like to see more of in other books.)

Mypologies if that's somewhat too rambling to make sense of. I did thoroughly enjoy it (and stand by most of what I'd said originally), but the points (especially a few of the 'big' told, not shown bits) you make do have non-negligible resonance with me. It is entirely possible my excitement might've got the better of me at bits.

(That said, I'm still unconvinced that the 114 sequence is 'action porn', so to speak. I think a lot of the grand destruction bits served as excellent background to a lot of cool and decent storytelling, and well written too: but of course I'd say that, I'm at a loss to substantiate it though! Then again, this amusing youtube re-edit from io9 of 2012's trailer seem relevant all the same.)

[Wazzahamma]

First of all, try reading this story, though before you click the link beware that some of the sentence structures aren't very good. I'll wait. ... Finished? Did you enjoy it? I'm going to guess not... that story is legendarily bad. I mean, it's eye-gougingly awful. Does me warning you beforehand excuse all its failures and miraculously make it a good book? Clearly not. Likewise with KNF (though nowhere near as bad)... yes, it's a story about a battle, and that has certain implications and limitations... but IMO to qualify as a good book in my opinion, it has to transcend them, it's not excused by them.

I see where you're going with this, but you're not comparing apples with apples.

Your first example is essentially a disclaimer on the quality judgement of a piece of fiction, while the second example is an explanation of context.

One is purely a value judgment, the other determines a situation surrounding the work in which to frame it.

Very different.

Necropolis (also by Abnett) was also a story about a battle but had a thousand times more character development, tension and interesting drama than KNF, so it can be done (and Abnett can do it).

You seem to have very defined and strong ideas on what constitutes "character development" and "interesting drama", specifically on how it should be presented in a story and how much of the story should be devoted to it. That's not really a problem, but it does lend itself to quite a strict interpretation of any text.

I get the impression that you like a dense and detailed approach to character development, or at least something solid on the page that you can clearly define as such. Whereas, Abnett seems to be going for a more filmic approach in this novel, meaning that (funnily enough considering this is one of your criticisms) it's a matter of him showing not telling. The presentation of character is more subtle; it's conveyed through mannerisms, small insights within thoughts and dialogue. It's what's known as implicit characterisation, as opposed to explicit.

It's like the reader is given the tip of the iceberg and we need to imagine the great bulk of it ourselves, which invites an active readership rather than passive. That tip is still crafted with the entire bulk in mind though, it's neither lazy or half-thought out. In fact, it's harder to pull off.

Neither approach is better or worse, simply different.

Noted, I'm talking about characterisation specifically and not development, but since I haven't read the book, that's about as far as I feel confident to go.

Going back to the earlier example of "context", when people say KNF is a "battle book" what I think they're trying to imply is that it is plot driven as opposed to character driven story structure. Again, this doesn't make it bad. Plot driven novels are an established (and probably the earliest) form in literature and notably in film (especially Hollywood). Phillip Pullman is a decent example of a contemporary plot-driven writer who still gives wonderful implicit characterisation (though he can play in the other sandbox too). To demand that a plot driven novel be more character driven is like asking your volkswagen to be more helicopter.

The problem I think Abnett runs into is that he's happy to play with different styles of writing, which can be both exciting and disappointing for his long term readers.

What I'm trying to express is that Abentt hasn't dropped the ball or forgotten the rules of the game that he is usually so good at- he's throwing us a different ball in a different game.

Secondly, I think my "bolter porn" comment has been overplayed. It's true that I do think there is too much vacuous so-called action that is over-described in an attempt to elicit an unlikely viceral response while ultimately remaining devoid of meaningful consequence (yeah... "bolter porn" is more succinct),

But it isn't succinct. It's the very definition of vague. You might be able to argue that it's a buzzword at best, but it's got more in common with weasel words than anything.

and as an example of that I'd give page 114 (and in fact that entire sequence, 20 pages or so of it!) as exhibit A... seventeen kilometres!... twelve kilometres!... thirty-five thousand dead!... yawn. In my opinion, the excessive gratuitous detail becomes tedious very rapidly and the constant insistence on providing very precise supposedly-impressive-sounding numbers ("forty-nine lift ships and one hundred and sixty-eight small lighters and ferries") ends up feeling to me more like a grocery list than what is presumably intended, which is the impression of epic scale. Thus I conclude it's bolter porn - it's not simply that I dismiss any fight sequence as bolter porn (I wouldn't read BL books at all if I did). But, with all that said - it's far from the only criticism I've made.

I can't really comment on this, but perhaps you could supply a more successful example of "impressive sounding numbers" on an "epic scale" that you would not conclude is bolter porn in order to give us a bit more context to contrast this with?

"Show don't tell" is the other major one, as I explained in my first post in this thread - and for me it's probably the biggest failure of the book, far more than the bolter porn (and it's so unlike Abnett). I refer the interested reader back to my earlier comments as for why I think that ("We are friends", "Guilliman is clever", "Kor Phaeron tried to convert him", etc).

I suppose likewise I could refer back to my thoughts on the "we are friends" scene (if we're talking about Tchure and Honorious).

If that kind of stuff had all been cut, it would have left room to expand all the characterisation - and suddenly there's room, in a book about a battle, for the stuff that apparently books about battles can't have.

Again, there seems to be a disconnect between what Abnett was aiming for and what you were hoping for. Your critique seems to imply that he made a choice to exclude the 'good stuff' in preference for the 'bad stuff' he used instead. It's a little condescending and... just not how writing works.

That's like saying that if Tolkein had left out all that over the top, highly detailed and long-winded world building stuff, he would have had room to develop the plot a bit more and introduce some political thriller elements and sex scenes in there too, because that's the stuff I like and what makes a good story. Or even any other plot than just...walking.

It misses the point of what the author was trying to accomplish and narrows down the scope of what "good literature" is.

So yeah. I should probably have left it as "you and I simply like different books" but since people seemed to be labouring under the misconception that "bolter porn" was my only criticism, there's the rest of it.

Well, by 'people' I'm not sure who you mean, but I was careful to address the term in and of itself.

I'm not saying that you can't dislike the book or have problems with it, or that Abnett can't write a miss amongst the hits (I'm reserving final judgement till I've actually read the damn thing) but there's a difference between what's not to personal taste and what's a failing on the part of a writer. And yes, these things can be seen from an objective viewpoint.



PS.
Xisor, at the risk of sounding like an Abnett apologist...I know what you mean in regards to "the infamous 'stand in a line for victory' sequences" in BotS, but I remember you saying you put the book down in disgust before finishing. Did you get to the chapters where Abnett subverts those sequences? That's part of their point- they're one part set-up, one part power fantasy and epic male mythology.

[SunTzu]

Again, there seems to be a disconnect between what Abnett was aiming for and what you were hoping for. Your critique seems to imply that he made a choice to exclude the 'good stuff' in preference for the 'bad stuff' he used instead. It's a little condescending and... just not how writing works.
...
there's a difference between what's not to personal taste and what's a failing on the part of a writer. And yes, these things can be seen from an objective viewpoint.

This is why, throughout all of my criticism, I have made a point to repeatedly use phrases like "I think", "I felt" and "in my opinion". Maybe, for the book that Abnett was trying to write, this was a resounding success. It certainly sounds like some people enjoyed it, so it was a success for them too. That's fine. All I'm saying is, I didn't much like this book, for the reasons given. I make no claim of my opinion defining reality.

With that said, I do usually like Abnett's work and I've liked most of the HH series to a greater or lesser degree. But just because it's an HH book by Abnett I'm not going to conclude from it that my lack of enjoyment from the book was actually a masterstroke because he's reinvented himself to keep us all guessing, and I should enjoy this instead of disliking it. Judging this book on its merits, I disliked it, personally. You seem to be saying that you've not read it but it's an HH book by Abnett so if there's something in there I don't like it must be because I don't appreciate what he's done with it. Which, y'know, great, I hope you do enjoy it when you get to it, genuinely; but I'm judging the book I read, and I, speaking for myself, didn't like it.

I get the impression that you like a dense and detailed approach to character development, or at least something solid on the page that you can clearly define as such. Whereas, Abnett seems to be going for a more filmic approach in this novel, meaning that (funnily enough considering this is one of your criticisms) it's a matter of him showing not telling. The presentation of character is more subtle; it's conveyed through mannerisms, small insights within thoughts and dialogue. It's what's known as implicit characterisation, as opposed to explicit.

I'm well aware of that distinction, and it's the main thrust of my criticism. You say (without having read the book) that he's trying to "show" character, and there's the implicit characterisation. But the only sense we get of Guilliman's character that is shown is that he swears a lot - that's the implicit characterisation. Which, like, I never really imagined one of the biggest heroes in the Imperium to be a petty potty-mouth, and I'm not sure that's the take away impression we're supposed to have. We're told that he's super-smart with information, but we're shown that it takes him three hours of vicious, terribly one-sided solar-system-scale warfare which is more akin to a massacre, before finally realising the WBs meant it all along thanks to a message from the previous day. It's like if Sherlock Holmes walked in on a room covered with blood, with three corpses and a man standing over them panting heavily with blood-covered knives in both hands and a mad glint in his eye, shouting "I killed them, I'm glad I killed them, and now I'm going to kill you!" and after the detectives subdue the man and take him away, AC Doyle writes "Holmes realised that the man had killed the victims; because he was super smart and could figure things out". Telling, not showing, and not very convincingly.

[Xisor]

PS.
Xisor, at the risk of sounding like an Abnett apologist...I know what you mean in regards to "the infamous 'stand in a line for victory' sequences" in BotS, but I remember you saying you put the book down in disgust before finishing. Did you get to the chapters where Abnett subverts those sequences? That's part of their point- they're one part set-up, one part power fantasy and epic male mythology.

I'm not specifically sure of what you refer to 'where Abnett subverts those sequences', I plainly didn't catch that!

I did finish it, in the end. Last year or the end of 2010, I managed it. It didn't improve. The 'stand in a line' bit is all well and good, but even with power fantasy and epic male mythology...it's a dubious tactic that massively diminishes the 'monstrosity' of the Dark Eldar and Orks in the concept, let alone in the particular story. Though I can't deny there were interesting bits to the book, I still often & regularly throughout felt like throwing it away, as you say, in disgust!

The conceit of the story, the highly stylised world of it, the legendary feel to things...I don't think it worked. A failed experiment, if you will. I can just about manage to stifle my disgust enough to sincerely respect the integrity of the attempt at the experiment...but I (still) do not enjoy the results!

Similarly, I think plenty of character development and wondrous story could be eked out of a hyper-realist take on the tedious horror of actually being a Space Marine. More, I'm sure someone could do a lovely pastiche by opting for Alan Bennett-esque Marines. It could prove lots of points and highlight lots of significant aspects of the setting...but would it make my eyes melt? Brothers of the Snake elicited that response. I'm sanguine enough about it these days to be more...aware of the nature of the gulf between me and That Book. But nevertheless, it's essentially the massive beacon for what I'd like to not read from the Black Library. It saddens me slightly, therefore, to see me quite divorced from the rest of the consumers! If only they were all and every one of them clamouring for more Matt Farrer! *Shakes fist*

As for Guilliman being portrayed as slow: I don't agree. I think Abnett went (successfully) to show the great lengths with which Guilliman goes to consciously afford Lorgar the benefit of the doubt. Your Sherlock analogy, SunTzu, is quite wrong in that regard. It's a steady build-up of evidence. At every point up until Point 0 it's quite plausible that a message could've come through saying "This is Lorgar, my ship's been ravaged by scrap-code. What the hell's going on!?".

[Shogunate]

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/M'kar

Where was this guy? Other than a couple of references I think they missed a trick not including him.

[stormblade]

Really good book, I loved the references to Abnett's not-HH books (Ravenor, Salvation's Reach) as well as the first HH appearance and long awaited reappearence of the greatest imperial hero EVER

That being said I do have a few things to note:
1. Kor Phaeron thing was kind of lame and unfullfilling (although I would've liked it better if it was even shorter and less dramatic, anticlimactic approach is underrated in my opinion)
2. The titans weren't really a proper deus ex machina as they were mentioned before their appearance and didn't come out of nowhere (and they hadn't really 'fixed' everything)
3. Prosero Burns is/was/will be (etc.) awesome.

EDIT: Also, didn't Lorgar kind of broke the fourth wall when he

reefered to the Ultramarines as 'toy soldiers'

I'm not sure if that constitutes breaking the fourth wall but I laughed none the less

[Xisor]

EDIT: Also, didn't Lorgar kind of broke the fourth wall when he

reefered to the Ultramarines as 'toy soldiers'

I'm not sure if that constitutes breaking the fourth wall but I laughed none the less

In my copy of the book he

looked right at me out of the page and gave a big, theatrical wink

, and yes, I quite agree re: the Titans. They weren't DEMs, they were well-set up 'cavalry arrivals'. Like Gandalf at the end of the Two Towers.

That said, I'm much more impressed with Kor Phaeron. I think I'm aboard with SunTzu in saying that the scene was 'lame' because we didn't get enough. Though I can somewhat see how it'd have went well even if it'd been shorter and less emphasised too. I still think 'more' would've been good though.

[Wazzahamma]

This is why, throughout all of my criticism, I have made a point to repeatedly use phrases like "I think", "I felt" and "in my opinion".

That you have, but the packaging on the tin didn't match the contents.

And as you have expressed yourself, a disclaimer does not excuse the work.

With that said, I do usually like Abnett's work and I've liked most of the HH series to a greater or lesser degree. But just because it's an HH book by Abnett I'm not going to conclude from it that my lack of enjoyment from the book was actually a masterstroke because he's reinvented himself to keep us all guessing, and I should enjoy this instead of disliking it. Judging this book on its merits, I disliked it, personally. You seem to be saying that you've not read it but it's an HH book by Abnett so if there's something in there I don't like it must be because I don't appreciate what he's done with it.

This is becoming deflective.

Not what I'm saying, and I think you know it. I'm pointing out the way you've presented your opinion, which is inconsistent with how you're framing it now. I've already given examples of that previously and your posts are still up there to be read, so I don't really need to again.

You're not so much saying 'Dan is playing a different game to what I normally like, but good luck to him'...it's more 'It's my opinion Abnett has dropped the ball and ruined the game and here's how he should have made it better'. Either is fine to go with, but you can't claim both simultaneously.

I'm well aware of that distinction, and it's the main thrust of my criticism.

If it is a matter of taste and being succinct, saying "I don't like plot-driven fiction" would have nailed it in one sentence.

Attempting to tackle an entire narrative form is a quite a task to set for yourself.

You say (without having read the book) that he's trying to "show" character, and there's the implicit characterisation. But the only sense we get of Guilliman's character that is shown is that he swears a lot - that's the implicit characterisation.

Now that's being unfair again and reductive. All exaggeration aside.

I don't even need to read the book to know that's not the "only sense that is shown" of his character.

I have read the extracts, and picking up on the style of writing is possible to glean from those dozen or so pages. Whether or not the author can pull it off over the course of an entire book is something I can't know without reading each page, but identifying the tropes and devices and approach and genre? I've been trained to do that at a glance (it's my uni background and part of what I do for work. ), but even then, anyone could do it. You're an intelligent, reasonable person and I would be confident you could do the same.

None of that is to say that I'm totally right or accurate, but it is to say that I can still make a decently informed judgement. And the extract with Guilliman and Lorgar meeting again for the first time since Monarchia is full of that implicit characterisation stuff.

Which, like, I never really imagined one of the biggest heroes in the Imperium to be a petty potty-mouth, and I'm not sure that's the take away impression we're supposed to have.

On the other hand, I'm certain it isn't.

We're told that he's super-smart with information, but we're shown that it takes him three hours of vicious, terribly one-sided solar-system-scale warfare which is more akin to a massacre, before finally realising the WBs meant it all along thanks to a message from the previous day.

I won't comment on the specifics here, but I will give a little compassion to the Heresy authors in these instances, since writing about superhuman feats beyond the ability of a normal human being is...well...beyond the ability of a normal human being. I've enjoyed the HH books so far, but I can't really recall any of the primarchs pulling off anything that couldn't have been thought of or planned by a relatively smart human being.

There is also a level of suspension of disbelief and working with the author required in these things. Again, active readership, rather than passive.

[SunTzu]

There is also a level of suspension of disbelief and working with the author required in these things. Again, active readership, rather than passive.

I'm all in favour of willing suspension of disbelief. I don't think I could read any fiction (of which I read an awful lot) and certainly not most of the BL books (of which I read more than half of what they release) without it.

But a willing suspension of disbelief and active readership doesn't mean disabling all critical faculties and pretending to enjoy a book I did not enjoy. I didn't. It's that simple, and that's all I have been saying throughout. Sorry if it offends you that I didn't enjoy a book you've not read but that you've already determined ahead of time that you're going to enjoy because of what it is; but I didn't, and all I can do is say as much and attempt to explain why. If you disagree, that's great, the world would be boring if we were all the same. If you don't like the reasons I give, sorry about that too, but they're the best ones I've got and attempting to pick them apart one by one doesn't change the underlying fact that I didn't enjoy it.

[Apologist]

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/M'kar
Where was this guy? Other than a couple of references I think they missed a trick not including him.

Maloq Kartho is simply Hol Beloth's apostle at this point, so I think the small references he gets in Know No Fear –

a mention that he has promised Hol Beloth ascension

– are all we'll get of him.

[blindingdark]

Finished the book last night.

I enjoyed the writing style, and the first half of the book. The second half though was a bit too much combat, and not enough story telling. As with all BL novels, it also ends rather abruptly, having characters in the book that dont really do anything, and dont appear to have any purpose (oll?)

I found this strange, as the book already introduced a huge number of characters, so having some present in the story that do nothing didnt make any sense to me.
I was also a little bothered by the confrontation between Kor and Guilliman.

Without hyperbole, I dont think it should have been so easy for Kor - a non astartes - to dish out such a beating, even with warp aid. I would have liked to have seen this handled differently.

If I was to split the book in half, and just take the lead up and start of the battle, I would say its my favorite HH novel. Unfortunatly it really losses pace after this. The ending being rather poor.

just as a side note though, I think DA did some really cool stuff with little snippets hear and there. The being 'Voided without a helm' answers many a fanboy question Ive seen pop up throughout the years, while still leaving it open. I found a few bits like that, gave me a smile.

overall. 7/10. It would have been a 9 if the second half was better handled.

[Shogunate]

Maloq Kartho is simply Hol Beloth's apostle at this point, so I think the small references he gets in Know No Fear –

a mention that he has promised Hol Beloth ascension

– are all we'll get of him.

A shame, seeing as his killer, Captain Ventanus, features so prominently.