# Do you think the HH series should've been organised chronologically?



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm a straightforward guy. Chronologically, the series jumps all over the place. I'm OK with flashbacks and such, but I'd prefer for HH novels to be published according to the Heresy's timeline. 

What we're getting seems to be little order with only a vague progression that has started to pick up steam recently. 

*Bonus Question*: *Would you like to see a "Great Crusade" series covering the early development of the primarchs and the legions?*


----------



## TRU3 CHAOS (May 21, 2010)

How would you not? I think people are losing there minds. Even the same characters are being written differently.


----------



## Marcoos (Sep 26, 2010)

Regarding the timeline, No. There are two many things happening simultaneously to be able to have a linear narrative. Furthermore Horus Rising was the perfect point to start the series, but if we only had a linear structure we would be denied many of the great stories we've seen (at the very least, parts of Fulgrim, Legion, Flight of the Eisenstein, The First Heretic, and The Last Church and After Desh'Ea from Tales of Heresy).

Regarding the Great Crusade, I'm not too bothered about separate novels, but I really enjoy the flashbacks to these events throughout the series and would love to see more of them.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Marcoos said:


> Regarding the timeline, No. There are two many things happening simultaneously to be able to have a linear narrative. Furthermore Horus Rising was the perfect point to start the series, but if we only had a linear structure we would be denied many of the great stories we've seen (at the very least, parts of Fulgrim, Legion, Flight of the Eisenstein, The First Heretic, and The Last Church and After Desh'Ea from Tales of Heresy).
> 
> Regarding the Great Crusade, I'm not too bothered about separate novels, but I really enjoy the flashbacks to these events throughout the series and would love to see more of them.


Perhaps I should've made myself clearer. 

Perfect chronological order is nigh impossible, but what we have now is the barest minimum of chronological order. If perfect chronological order would be 100% and what we have now is 20%, I would advocate something in between...around, say, 80%


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

One could argue that if a book series is organised chronologically, then it should be written chronologically. I think it can add something when the we're introduced to characters and events first and then given introspective flashbacks later - it keeps the pacing in check and makes us feel like we haven't lost what the story is about. That being said, some people have thought that as the series has gone on it's lost some of it's objectivity and broken down into filler erstwhile tales. Maybe some speed to Terra wouldn't be bad.

Oh, who am I kidding, I need to read more than Flight of the Eisenstein and The Last Church to fully participate in this one. But I hope my thoughts on the fundamentals of writing still hold some pointers. :grin:


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't think it should have been written chronologically. Had that been done, I think much of the impact of "revelations" (such as those of "Legion") would have been lost.

That having been said, I do think certain releases could have been better timed. Certain novels probably needed to be novellas, graphic novels, or even short stories. Certain novellas and limited releases probably should have been "mandatory reading".


----------



## Bane_of_Kings (Oct 28, 2009)

I personally don't mind, as long as we get the story told, key events and legions explored in depth, and would love to see a Great Crusade Series told in a similar multi-author style like the Horus Heresy Series.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

Nope.

Granted, the series is a giant mess of inconsistent pacing these days, but publishing it in in-verse chronological order would have narrowed down the techniques the authorial caste can utilise. A good example would be how several books take a dramatic event - such as Isstvan V and gradually build towards this appex and will often provide their own perspective of the event. It provides a nice dynamic between books. Conversely, in-verse chronological publication would have made the story feel too linear, and would place importance on what's at the end of the road (Terra) over all the juicy strife and bloodshed that takes place along the way.

A different way to view this would be to imagine you're on Terra during the Heresy and are receiving information, book-by-book, of the destruction of the Emperor's Creed and Creation. You can take each book and construct an overall view of the Galaxy at this time; like pieces of ceramic from a mosaic.

*Edit:* Answering your second question, I'm not bothered. They'd just feel like your run-of-the-mill 40k Space Marine novels, but with a slightly different sandpit to play in and a bunch of different legendary figures here and there.


----------



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

I'm indifferent. If you want them in chronological order, just arrange them that way. I might.

And in answer to your second question. No. The Heresy series is revealing enough about the Crusade that a series about it would be superfluous.


LotN


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> I'm indifferent. If you want them in chronological order, just arrange them that way. I might.


I think it's more for the benefit of the authours, really...

Recently, they've been fu**ing the continuity up, especially with regard to Istvaan/Prospero 



bobss said:


> Nope.
> Granted, the series is a giant mess of inconsistent pacing these days, but publishing it in in-verse chronological order would have narrowed down the techniques the authorial caste can utilise.


I really regret phrasing the question and answers they way I did now. 

I'm not advocating strict chronological order with zero exceptions. Flashbacks and the same events from different angles are all fine and dandy. I just don't like it when the series jumps all over the place. 

I suppose I'm asking whether you guys would prefer BL to adhere more strictly to in-universe chronological order (more than they do now) 

As it is with any rule of this sort, adhering too strictly to chronological order is a bad thing. However, I think we can all agree that too little chronological order results in "a giant mess of inconsistent pacing"


----------



## Marcoos (Sep 26, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> I think it's more for the benefit of the authours, really...
> 
> Recently, they've been fu**ing the continuity up, especially with regard to Istvaan/Prospero


Apparently this isn't a mistake (assuming you are referring to the Outcast Dead), and will be explained in a forthcoming novel (not sure which one).


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

Marcoos said:


> Apparently this isn't a mistake (assuming you are referring to the Outcast Dead), and will be explained in a forthcoming novel (not sure which one).


Intentional continuity errors being explained =/= Unintentional continuity errors being rectified via retconning.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I think the fact it's not entirely in chronological order adds to it's flavour, if it was simply laid out in front of us we wouldn't have as much to discuss 

Also I'd love to see a Great Crusade Era line but the two lost legions issue will never let that happen.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

bobss said:


> Intentional continuity errors being explained =/= Unintentional continuity errors being rectified via retconning.


My thoughts exactly. Going to take some epic explaining and reasoning to explain away such an epic fuck up in the space time continuum, 'intended' or not.


----------



## Marcoos (Sep 26, 2010)

Angel of Blood said:


> My thoughts exactly. Going to take some epic explaining and reasoning to explain away such an epic fuck up in the space time continuum, 'intended' or not.


Agree with you both. However I'd rather it does get explained/retconned than it's left as is.


----------



## mal310 (May 28, 2010)

Marcoos said:


> Agree with you both. However I'd rather it does get explained/retconned than it's left as is.


I agree, but it never should have happened in the first place. If it was a mistake then its a horrendous one. If it was intentional then it was a horrendous decision. When I first read it I had to stop and was thinking WTF. Then I though he was being clever and part of the book was set in the past and another the present. But he wasn't being clever, he was just being stupid. I know of no one who thought that this added to the story. This really was the rock bottom part of the series for me. Dreadful. 

I hold little hope of a credible explanation that will be able to withstand being totally picked apart.


----------



## Sequere_me_in_Tenebras (Nov 11, 2012)

I'm fine with the series being released out of chronological order, however it would be easier for some if a timeline was more readily available. Future releases could fill in the gaps and the more obvious events.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

mal310 said:


> I agree, but it never should have happened in the first place. If it was a mistake then its a horrendous one.


Couldn't have said it better myself. If it were intentional (which I doubt), it's a totally pointless decision. I mean, why? Just to highlight that the Warp fu**s up time? Even that explanation isn't completely satisfying


----------



## cheeto (Apr 1, 2011)

MontytheMighty said:


> I'm a straightforward guy. Chronologically, the series jumps all over the place. I'm OK with flashbacks and such, but I'd prefer for HH novels to be published according to the Heresy's timeline.
> 
> What we're getting seems to be little order with only a vague progression that has started to pick up steam recently.
> 
> *Bonus Question*: *Would you like to see a "Great Crusade" series covering the early development of the primarchs and the legions?*


I think so... If they did it this way I suspect it would have focused the authors attention in a way that makes the story flow better for the reader rather than having so many stories scatter shot all over the place some of which aren't even related to the heresy...

There is potential for a great crusade series.


----------



## Duke_Leto (Dec 11, 2010)

Chronological = Not really but perhaps if there had been either:

A) A loosely chronological release of books (with some tangents etc) then it *might* be easier to follow.

B) A published timeline of the HH that shows where books fit in (that may indeed be forthcoming at some point as part of the Visions of Heresy art/background book and/or the Forgeworld HH campaign books).

Great Crusade = Not really for me. As said above, enough of the detail has been/is being revealed through flashback etc in the HH books to satisfy this need for me.

Connected to all of his debate about the HH books and whether BL is taking too long to get to Terra etc etc...

I have stopped thinking about this as a single series/storyline about a pivotal event in the 40k background and instead (especially since the start of Forgeworld's HH series) begun looking at HH as a setting much like W40k is a setting. The difference of course is that we know the end game, however, this galaxy spanning event is a epoch of dramatic potential and there are countless stories to be told.

Personally I am enjoying the journey and I am in no particular hurry to get to the Battle of Terra (because then it is all over!)


----------



## Stephen74 (Oct 1, 2010)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> How would you not? I think people are losing there minds. Even the same characters are being written differently.


That's a huge pet peeve of mine, the way the same legions, events and characters are being portrayed by different authors. It makes a real mess of the whole franchise in my opinion. GW/BL should have a much tighter control on the 'lore' aspects of the books.


----------



## Stephen74 (Oct 1, 2010)

I think certain books should have a chronological order to them. For example, the first three of the Heresy and the Flight of the Eisenstein work well. After that it's not overly necessary to have them in chronological order as they are largely filler stories. 

If we get to the stage of the actual fighting between the two sides and the battle for terra etc then I think it should go back to a chronological order. 

Some of the books with flash backs are a bit difficult to follow at times, especially with the amount of irrelevant drivel used to fill the books out. Fear to Tread has some moment where I have to do a double take to figure out whats going on. 

In the books it might be a bit easier to track, on Audio, it's bloody hard unless you are really paying attention.


----------



## chilledmonkeybrains (Sep 6, 2012)

Another one for the indifferent pile, I'm afraid. I agree with certain points made regarding flashbacks being useful/important, and also that some of the HH series has become a little jumbled, especially with different authors bringing their own take on the same characters.

All in, though, without a seriously strict and well-planned order of events in place from the get-go, one that is actually adhered to, then what's happened with the HH series, with the multitude of different authors, was inevitable. Also, some authors (i.e. Dan Abnett) are better - and more experienced - than others.

Oh, and regarding a Great Crusade series, I'm gonna say no thanks. Its always good to have some mystery in any fictional setting. I think we know enough already.

Saying that, I bet BL will do it at some point... ($$$$$)


----------



## Sequere_me_in_Tenebras (Nov 11, 2012)

Stephen74 said:


> That's a huge pet peeve of mine, the way the same legions, events and characters are being portrayed by different authors. It makes a real mess of the whole franchise in my opinion. GW/BL should have a much tighter control on the 'lore' aspects of the books.


Agreed, this is something that needs tightening up. 

At least they've not written in Angron as the traitors tea lady.


----------



## bigtax (Jun 2, 2010)

I like the Great Crusade idea,it will be so cool to see 20 legions beat the shit of Xenos,maybe at that time,the warhammer world will not so grim.
And the most important thing for BL is to have more great writers.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

No.

I should explain. No because it would not work.

What I like about not writing in a strict chronological era means they can go back to certain area if they feel that more can be added etc. If they were more strict with chronology in releasing the series then I feel there is less creative room. Especially in a project like this that is going on for a undetermined number of books being written by a number of authors.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I think that once the HH series is done, they'd be fools not to go back and do the Great Crusade, or even a series based on the Emperor.


----------



## Duke_Leto (Dec 11, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> I think that once the HH series is done, they'd be fools not to go back and do the Great Crusade, or even a series based on the Emperor.


Personally I would rather they carried on forward and tackled The Scouring.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Duke_Leto said:


> Personally I would rather they carried on forward and tackled The Scouring.


Why not all? 

More stuff about the Great Crusade, The Unification Wars, Malcador, the primarchs

also books set during The Scouring, The Nova Terra Interregnum, and The Age of Apostasy


----------

