# what separates an excellent BL work from a bog standard or subpar one?



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

I've read quite a bit of fiction

and I think whether I enjoy a work depends on whether there's 
good dialogue (intelligent conversations and characters have unique personalities) 
evocative descriptions/imagery 
plots with a few twists (less predictable) 

the stuff that I don't enjoy so much usually has 
wooden dialogue (every character sounds the same)
descriptions very bland and matter-of-fact
predictable plots (bolter porn takes precedence over story development) 

your opinions?


----------



## Dicrel Seijin (Apr 2, 2011)

I'd agree with what you've listed so far.

I'd add the idiot clause (do the characters have to be idiots for the plot to work?).

And no _deus ex machina_ (except for the LotD, 'cause they're awesome like that) to resolve the plot.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

I'd have to add that, for me, its easy to tell when a writer/author has a real understanding of the universe, or when its just a paycheck at the end of the day.

That can really make or break a book for me.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

I love Abnett's work but when he gets so detailed with describing the environment I space out and forget my own name.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

I've just read a short story by Mitchel Scanlon and I can't say I was very impressed
I've produced fan fiction of a similar calibre...


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Post proof or retract.

The law of the interwebz.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Malus Darkblade said:


> I love Abnett's work but when he gets so detailed with describing the environment I space out and forget my own name.


...see, in my eyes, Matthew Farrer is the best thing that ever happened to BL, and his books tend to not so much as get detailed descriptions as derailed plots on account of how _freaking awesome_ he portrays the 40k universe.

So I guess the largest selling point, for me, is how well you channel the grim gothic awesomeness of 40k. Abnett does it fairly well, ADB is excellent in that regard, but Farrer...is freaking amazing.

Strokes:folks::horses:courses, though.


----------



## increaso (Jun 5, 2010)

What makes 40k good is my subjective opinion.

Unlike Mossy, I find Farrer to be largely indecipherable/confusing and generally frustrating to read; it's such a chore (save After Desh'ea and the first Calpurnia book). But like Mossy, I agree it's individual taste.

From any book I rate decent characters and straightforward text, followed closely by a decent plot. I can take or leave flowery descriptions and don't care for combat scenes, especially blow-by-blow accounts.

Chris Wraight's 'Sword of' books still lie at the top of my favourites pile.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

increaso said:


> _After Desh'ea_


wasn't too fond of that one
Angron reminded me too much of the Hulk

I feel that Angron should have moments of clarity and intelligence, which really highlight his lost potential


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

I liked "After Desh'ea." It was pretty good.

Then I read Farrer's blog on the subject, and I like it a whooole lot more: http://matthewfarrer.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/after-deshea/#more-75


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Mossy Toes said:


> Then I read Farrer's blog


good ideas, just wasn't a fan of his execution


----------



## Commissar Ploss (Feb 29, 2008)

Now while i think Farrer has a wonderful knack for writing. example: in the Sabbat Worlds anthology his story: _The Hammerstone Kings._ It was very intricate in it's execution and description. almost too much so... for fiction that is. 

I would like to see Farrer turned loose on fictionalized background material dissertations. Basically, what it comes down to for me, is that i love Matt's descriptions, however, I think he's best suited for a "non-fiction" approach to the material. I'd love to see his descriptive prowess put to work on material like the non-fiction stuff we've seen already. the Munitorum Manual, Uplifting Primer etc. i think that would be ACE!! But to me, i can't quite enjoy his ficiton, i'm not sure why. Actually i take that back, i do enjoy his fiction, but it curdles my brain... it's very deep, very intricate, and that's not a _bad_ thing, its just overwhelming. I'd love to read what he can do with reference material, i would love to read that stuff. 

Abnett, when it comes to writing, is prime stuff in my eyes. Nothing in his books is unnecessary to the story. Every word in his books plays a part in furthering the narrative and getting the story where it needs to go. They're exceptionally fast reads, and i always find myself thoroughly winded when i complete one of his books. Never truly disappointed by anything of his that i read. Even books that were written in a month _(Fell Cargo)_, are rousing reads and hold your attention. You'd be hardpressed to find that with many other authors these days.

CP


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

I jumped back into W40k with Abnett's Titanicus, which was an awesome read.

After reading heresy up to Tales of Heresy (need to catch up) and all of the Cain and Gaunt novels, I have found out of all the authors Abnett slipping a little, he is writing more of a Sharpe in Space than W40k, especially towards the last few books in the Gaunts series.

His early heresy stuff was top notch, as was Titanicus that had some really great moments that thoroughly emersed you into the book (When Legio Invicta first walks was a spectacular moment IMO) but what was Legion all about!

Going to address Gaunt in a new thread as not to hijack this one 

But to agree with the OP points, I do not like to read predictable plots, cliche action scenes, wooden characters etc and the author needs to understand W40k canon and not deviate from it, when this happens I find myself questioning the whole story from then on in! (see my Gaunts post)


----------



## Cowlicker16 (Dec 7, 2010)

In any book that I can care for the character is a good one for me. If I can find myself really rooting for someone in a believable scene and truly hope that he will succeed has earned a recommendation from me.


----------



## DecrepitDragon (Aug 2, 2011)

Cowlicker16 said:


> In any book that I can care for the character is a good one for me. If I can find myself really rooting for someone in a believable scene and truly hope that he will succeed has earned a recommendation from me.


And also, wishing that the bad guy/s are going to fail, and knowing that they wont quite yet - gripping stuff that draws you forward into the story is better to read.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Characterisation and an understanding of the source material and some of the most important aspects for me. Which is why ADB is one of my favourites so far. He writes interesting, non 2 dimensional characters who the plot services rather than the other way around. He also displays and very good understanding of the 40k universe with an interpretation that matches my own very closely. 

Abnett is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand i really enjoyed Titanicus, his Heresy novels and the Esienhorn series but i couldn't stand Gaunt's Ghosts. 

I loved _After Desh'ea_, it's another excellent example of humanising and sympathising the traitor legions. Seeing how far Kharn fell is really something. 

So what's separates the good from the bog standard:
Characterisation and development, 
A thorough understanding of the background,
A plot that serves that characters rather than they serving it,
A plot that doesn't require anyone to act like an idiot for it to work,
Evocative yet compact description,
And of course an actual plot and developing story rather than endless bolter porn.


----------



## cheeto (Apr 1, 2011)

Depth. A feeling you get when the story is rooted in a deep history. One of the reasons 40k rocks so much is the depth of history it is founded on. Reading one story inevitably leads you to want to read and learn more. It is so cool that all of the stories take their root from something that happened 10k years prior, the Horus Heresy. Honestly, the HH books pale in comparison to the stuff that happens in 40k, but that is just my opinion which is based on hopelessly high expectations of what and how the HH books should be written.

Character development also creates depth. Life is about struggle whether we are at war or peace. It's not necessarily about winning a battle or the war, it's about choosing to fight it in the first place. Take the economy for example. Even in this economy, there are people who choose to double their efforts to prosper and provide for their families and what not. It shows character when people choose the tougher road vs., in this cast, government welfare. Eisenhorn isn't the end all be all. He is a man who constantly struggles for what he believes in. Ah hell, there is more to this and I did a shit job of explaining it but that's because the wife is calling me to watch a movie. So for what it was worth


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

cheeto said:


> Depth. A feeling you get when the story is rooted in a deep history. One of the reasons 40k rocks so much is the depth of history it is founded on. Reading one story inevitably leads you to want to read and learn more. It is so cool that all of the stories take their root from something that happened 10k years prior, the Horus Heresy. Honestly, the HH books pale in comparison to the stuff that happens in 40k, but that is just my opinion which is based on hopelessly high expectations of what and how the HH books should be written.
> 
> Character development also creates depth. Life is about struggle whether we are at war or peace. It's not necessarily about winning a battle or the war, it's about choosing to fight it in the first place. Take the economy for example. Even in this economy, there are people who choose to double their efforts to prosper and provide for their families and what not. It shows character when people choose the tougher road vs., in this cast, government welfare. Eisenhorn isn't the end all be all. He is a man who constantly struggles for what he believes in. Ah hell, there is more to this and I did a shit job of explaining it but that's because the wife is calling me to watch a movie. So for what it was worth


QFT and +rep


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

I say several things turn a standard bolter and blade battle recap into a great story.


Characters: Characters must be several things in order to form part of a great story; They must be interesting, they must make the reader want to learn more about them, even if they hate them, the reader must be interested in learning about their past, their plans for their future and their relationships with other characters. Without that a character cannot be great, they can only be wooden; A character must also evolve through the story, they must change as their story affects them and begin to show that they have overcome whatever obstacles they faced.

A character being relatable is also an important step. When you can not only understand a character's motives but also agree with them even if their actions are mass slaughter as is so common in 40k, its a sign that the author has really made a good character here. Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines are hard characters, they aren't fully human and for them the norm of a human life is a completely alien thing. But there are many that we are still able to understand and relate to as we see their thoughts and learn more about them. Uriel Ventris, Talos, Sarpedon, Ragnar Blackmane and others.


Depth: A great story needs depth. For depth a writer must do several things, he must link his characters to the story personally, the story must connect to them personally, through that we can learn more about them. The story must also have layers, nothing is simple in 40k and nothing can be solved with the first plan. Plans must go wrong, the characters must adapt as the situation changes. What Cheeto said is right, history is a big part of depth. One of the reasons that 40k does so well is it has such a rich history to call upon. Be it galactic history or personal history, the wealth of the past allows 40k to use the past as much as the present in its stories. This gives you a feel of the weight of years in the story, the centuries and millennia that pass by for humanity as they work and fight every day to survive. 

But nothing exemplify history better than the Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines, for the latter history isn't history, its the last few years. The CSM fight a war that for them is personal, they actually fought at Terra and in the Heresy. But the SM didn't, and yet the war isn't any less personal for them because though they didn't fight in the Heresy, their Legions did and that history creates conflicts that still last 10,000 years later. The Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors both despise each other for something that happened 10,000 years ago to the Imperial Fists, and a century ago to the Iron Warriors.

One thing that I really feel enhances depth is environment. When an environment is vivid enough you can actually imagine yourself in it, and the characters as well. One scene that really stood out for me is in _Blood Gorgons_, when the protagonist Barsabbas and the Dark Eldar Sindul are marching through the desert, the Imperial city just on the horizon, and the sun bearing down on both of them. When I read this I could picture it clearly in my head, and that gave the story more depth and pulled me further in.


Epic Moment: This one is more personal but I feel that the Epic Moment in a novel can turn a common battle scene into something much more powerful and poignant. The best example I can give (Relying on memory alone) is _Soul Hunter_, in the final battle scene when First Claw go up against some Blood Angels. This sounds like just another battle, its enjoyable but not very separated from the norm. Enter Malcharion and Raguel the Sufferer. Two champions who faced each other ten thousand years ago at Terra and now face each other again. These two clashing together, and Uzas's unusually poetic observation that it was like they were flesh again, at Terra, makes this scene epic. 

An epic moment can be created through characters being brought together like Malcharion and Raguel; Changes in the surroundings such as a city collapsing while two armies/characters fight their battle even through the devastation; Emotions can also drive an epic moment as a character uses his/her emotion to make a scene that much more in-depth, many readers can empathize with the strong emotions of a character and can be engrossed further into the story because of it.


There's more but I don't feel like writing an essay on it.


Lord of the Night


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> Epic Moment: ...


I believe the phrase you're grasping for is "Crowning Moment of Awesome."

(whew, I almost got sucked in just finding the url...)


----------



## Lord of the Night (Nov 18, 2009)

Mossy Toes said:


> I believe the phrase you're grasping for is "Crowning Moment of Awesome."
> 
> (whew, I almost got sucked in just finding the url...)


There's a word for it? Cool.


Lord of the Night


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm not going to try to qualify a good story as opposed to a bad one, because - quite honestly - that's such a subjective topic. I mean, how many times have we seen a huge thread come up over a novel where half the posters thought it was genius while the other half thought it to be crap?

Rather, here's what I wish I could see more of even in stories I do enjoy:

*Grimdark.*

It seems to me that, more often than not, Black Library stories miss out on this theme. Maybe it's purposeful, given the nature of the universe and the range of readers they are trying to attract. But honestly, look at illustrations by, say, John Blanche or Karl Kopinsky and tell me that the stories we read seize on the epic darkness, religious mystique, and insanity that grips Humanity in the far future.

This applies to many different aspects of the stories I read. In terms of locale, I'd posit that _most_ cultures and places depicted in 40k stories don't have much of a sci-fi feel to them at all - grimdark or otherwise. Far more places like Pavonis ("Night Bringer", "Courage and Honour") get attention than do, say, Hubris ("Eisenhorn: Xenos") or Necromunda ("Space Marine"). And when you do get a story set in a hive or a similarly dark, oppressive setting, you don't necessarily get that sense at all. Detail is often minimal, to the point where even scale is often vague. I enjoyed "Necropolis", for instance, but more often than not Abnett's detail made me think of Cairo or some other crowded city - not a futuristic hive of over forty million people.

The same extends to the people themselves. It's rare that you get characters who - in my eyes at least - do justice to the core material and artwork that was assembled to give life to this IP. Blanche's characters do an excellent job of providing a human reflection to the insanity and bloodthirstiness of the Imperium of Man. They are scarred, with a mad gleam in their eyes, "enhanced" with augmetics, and cradling cybernetic pets like an eagle with a second head grafted on it... and yet they still somehow display a sense of regality and dark grandeur.

Beyond all that, I think I'll agree with other posters in this thread when they say deeper characterization is needed. Villains and heroes alike need compelling motivations for the story to be truly meaningful. Providing this also defeats another literary danger - having too direct and simple a plot.

Just my thoughts...

Cheers,
P.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Have there been any books that match your criteria Phoebus in the BL? 

I would be interested in checking them out assuming I haven't.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> I'm not going to try to qualify a good story as opposed to a bad one, because - quite honestly - that's such a subjective topic. I mean, how many times have we seen a huge thread come up over a novel where half the posters thought it was genius while the other half thought it to be crap?
> 
> Rather, here's what I wish I could see more of even in stories I do enjoy:
> 
> ...


:goodpost: I agree wholeheartedly. The prelude to all (40k) BL novels --

_"...To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime *imaginable*. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."_

-- really establishes a hopeless situation where humanity is doomed and there is no escaping the inevitability of that. You just don't really get that feeling with the vast majority of the books they pump out, which is a real shame because the grim dark nature is what the 40k setting is really based upon.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

That's a very valid point. Few works, that I can think of, measure up to Blanche's artistic majesty. Phoebus, has anything tickled your fancy? The _Enforcer Omnibus, Atlas Infernal, Lord of the Night, Faith And Fire,_ the Night Lords trilogy, _Daemon World, Xenology_? what is closest in your eyes?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Child-of-the-Emperor,*

Exactly! I mean, very often, many of the places described in the books honestly seem like _pretty happy and enjoyable_ places. Consider many of the planets Eisenhorn visits, for instance--especially in "Xenos", where they're having a jubilee for the Founding of their regiments. There's virtually zero Grimdark there.

Now, should the same themes be repeated over and over with the same intensity and descriptive tone? No, of course not. Necromunda had this oppressive theme, where you slaved and struggled, and your social betters hunted you for sport, and murderous aggressiveness was something _valued_ by the Imperial Fists in their prospective recruits. Should Ultramar be the same? No, but I think authors and creative teams do a disservice to the setting where they portray that realm as a mix of Rome and Sparta in space without any qualifiers or curveballs. I mean, Sparta was NOT a good place. For every valiant, honorable, "never say die" Spartan, there were (estimated) two or three second class citizens who acted as merchants, craftsmen, etc., and ten or more slaves who lived miserable lives and - at one point - were murdered by their teenage masters in the fields if they got too uppity. But Ultramar is literally described as a sort of utopia of honorable warriors and there's no mention as to how this society is able to sustain itself.

OK, now I'm just rambling! 

*Malus,*

That's a good question. "Space Marine" and "The Inquisition War" definitely hit on a lot of those notes (in my opinion). If I'm going to be completely honest, there are several novels that loosely seize on those themes (see the Gaunt's Ghosts books for frequent portrayals of an uncaring Imperial Guard)... or mention them in passing (see the Soul Drinkers books for that)... but I can't honestly say almost any of them (in my humble opinion) really use that into paragraph CotE cited at a blueprint.

I think _Chaos_-based novels (the Word Bearers trilogy evoked excellent themes; ditto for the Night Lords series) often do a good job of portraying the kind of horrors that lie in the Warp and their mortal servants... but I don't usually see a portrayal of the Imperium as this grand, murderous, fanatical, insane galactic power. I get more of a "Star Wars" vibe in the sense that you have these distinct cultures and places... but it's more general sci-fi or what have you, and not Grimdark.

And like CotE said, that's a shame.

*Mossy,*

I am currently reading "Atlas Infernal". I really hope it knocks my socks off, because it tackles material that has just seemed so enticing to be ever since I read of Ahriman trying to get to the Black Library and of an Inquisitor actually being there! I should have definitely mentioned "Lord of the Night" as well. Spurrier did a good job, IMHO, of showing the darker side of the Imperium's psyker programs, of the underside of human societies, and of the Warp and Chaos in general.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## deathbringer (Feb 19, 2009)

@Phoebus: but with eisenhorn does he ever really experience the grim dark, i mean of course he gets into the grey areas and gets his hands messy, but does he stay sleep or feel the danger of the hive. I doubt it, i mean lets face it, he has groups of aides, a weak grip on the aether and a bolt pistol at his hip, along with a high imperial budget so he wouldn't necessarily feel the grim dark. 

In the first scene of Eisenhorn where he is chasing through the factory, the higher caste awakening around him, hell i felt the grim dark, the fear and terror, the pain.

Eisenhorn is unique in its writing style in my view, being directly from his perspective, so i dont think he'd feel the grimdark, so to me thats why you dont see it in the novel.

Yes though i very much see your point on not feeling the nitty gritty attitude of the imperium, maybe its because very little of the fiction (at least that i've read) actually takes place in the hives, i mean an astartes certainly wouldnt feel that grimdarkness, and most imperial guard novels are on battle fronts.


Anywho

For me at least it's about the writing style, i say it time and time again and feel like a long playing record but there seems to be an immaturity, or childishness to some bl authors writing that puts it at a different level to others.

Graham Mcneil can spin a phrase on its head and then ram a metaphor unceremoniously up its arse with such beauty that you really are sucked in. Their is a beautiful fluidity to his writing, sentences don't seem disjointed, the whole thing seeming to flow nicely between chapters, the story advancing constantly never seeming to hault, no part feeling irrelevant or out of place.

He has his flaws, for example i'm halfway through heldenhammer and i personally dont think he is doing the best job of the older style, the "and their was much rejoicing" style that they seem to be trying to achieve with the time of legends series.

Abnett is the master of characterization, you do not find charactors with more flavour anywhere in 40k, gaunts ghosts for example, their are a bucket load of charactors, but god i feel like i know and love all of them, major rawne, the twisted bastard being my favourite. 

Those two have always eclipsed all others in my view and i always think its a certain lack of elegance, impetus and flow to the others writing. With some i feel like the novel lulls and drags in parts making it a chore to read and some the writing style just seems childish, for example space wolf omnibus was like pulling teeth to me. It was so badly written, written like a child, then Ragnar threw the spear and he was very happy. It irked me no ened


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

deathbringer 
Agree on the childlike writing, after reading Titanicus I moved onto Space Wolves and read the whole series, and at times I found myself rereading sentences because they were so badly written. None spring to mind as it was over 2 years ago, or maybe perhaps I have mentally blocked them as not to endure any further torment!

We need more Grimdark , this word is new to me, but I already subscribe to the concept :so_happy:.

W40k, although with its junior members is more of an adult passtime (seriously, can you see many 15 year olds fielding the armies showcased on here on pocket money and paper round wages) so unleash the darkness, do not skirt around the brutality or harshness, although stop short of torture porn but let Khorne worshippers do their stuff whilst humanity wallows in the horrors and reality of no other future except a violent death at the twisted corrupt hands of a warp crazed heretic, the razor claws of a multi limbed slobbering xenos...or a gretchin :grin:

__

In the forty first millenium there is only war.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

deathbringer said:


> @Phoebus: but with eisenhorn does he ever really experience the grim dark, i mean of course he gets into the grey areas and gets his hands messy, but does he stay sleep or feel the danger of the hive. I doubt it, i mean lets face it, he has groups of aides, a weak grip on the aether and a bolt pistol at his hip, along with a high imperial budget so he wouldn't necessarily feel the grim dark.
> 
> In the first scene of Eisenhorn where he is chasing through the factory, the higher caste awakening around him, hell i felt the grim dark, the fear and terror, the pain.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'm not talking about how Eisenhorn perceives things, though. I'm talking about the environments he's in, the ones that are objectively described to us by the author.

I mean, you hit the nail on the head: Hubris is exactly what I would imagine a 40k planet to be like. The problem is that most of the worlds Abnett describes aren't like that. That's not due to Eisenhorn's perceptions (the idea that what he sees as a regular neighborhood might seem like a hellhole to us), and I personally don't think it can be explained away by the fact that he tends to seek out comfortable accommodations.

At the end of the day, Grimdark isn't just about hives. It's about those themes encompassed in the introductory paragraph of every single BL book. An Astartes, for example, doesn't have to be in a hive to demonstrate Grimdark to a reader: it's his brainwashing and utter hatred of the unknown, his nigh- psychotic conditioning and fanaticism, his insane mix of the far-futuristic and ancient warrior codes, that make him Grimdark.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> For me, a novel that can make me picture the scenes and get me rooting for good/bad guy, depends on subject Legion/ chapter when reading 40k, is good for me. I will say Nick Kyme.... Make or break, you decide!!!!


----------

