# Angels of Darkness V Fallen Angels (spoilers)



## mal310 (May 28, 2010)

Just finished Angles of Darkness. I enjoyed it, but reading it has annoyed me. Fallen Angles (which I dislike even more now) and Angels of Darkness hardly match up to say the least! Honestly, did Mike Lee even bother to read this before starting his book?? I know that authors have their own take on events and I understand this. But the two books each have fundamental and completely different histories for the Dark Angles. These are not minor discrepancies around the periphery but themes central to the Legions identity. AOD suggests that Luther was loyal (as does the opening blurb of Decent of Angels) but in FA he clearly was not. Astelan’s portrayal in FA is farcical to say the least and the whole thing seems a total mess. 
I really enjoy Black Libraries work but I have to hold them responsible for this shambles. It’s easy to say “oh Astelan was just lying” but that is a cop out as AOD seemed to be all about why Astelan was not lying and in fact telling the truth. 
The issue around the Lion’s fence sitting has clearly not been resolved and this could still go either way. Personally I would like to see Gav Thrope write the next Horus Heresy Dark Angles book and for the Lion to be a treacherous fence sitter.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

What they've successfully done is set up the confusion and ambiguity around the fall of half the legion.

My frustration is that after three books on the subject it really is unclear what's going on with the Lion and why he seems to have rejected a large part of his own legion.

There are several ways it could potentially be explained but none of them have really had any depth given so we're still pretty clueless as an audience.


----------



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

In _Angels of Darkness_ the message its trying to put across wasn't that Luther was loyal, its that Lion El'Jonson was disloyal.

What _Angels of Darkness_ claims is that Lion El'Jonson was corrupted by Chaos and deliberately arrived late to Terra so he could see who was winning. If Horus had been winning then the Dark Angels would have joined with him, however they lost and when he returned to Caliban the loyal garrison and Luther wouldn't allow them to land, believing they were tainted. Jonson opened fire on Caliban and the battle begun.

I personally believe that its true. The Fallen are really the true loyalists and the ancient Dark Angels were the traitors to the Imperium, even if they didn't actually defect.


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

i disagree. Luther saw the imperium for what it was. a massive galaxy pimp. whoreing out worlds it enslaves to use them for all their resoures before casting them to the shadows. Thats why he turned on the imperium, he was loyal to his planet and people and did not want to see his homeworld raped of its identity. 

also, the reason why i think Jonson distanced himself from Luther was that Jonson knew that Luther contemplated letting the bomb rigged ship explode at the end of _Decent of Angles_, thus killing him. even though Luther didnt, Lion knew he *considered* it. so he banished him (and his men) back to Caliban until he could decide how to deal with his (up until then) most trusted friend.


----------



## Don_Keyballs (Jan 14, 2010)

Brother Subtle said:


> i disagree. Luther saw the imperium for what it was. a massive galaxy pimp. whoreing out worlds it enslaves to use them for all their resoures before casting them to the shadows. Thats why he turned on the imperium, he was loyal to his planet and people and did not want to see his homeworld raped of its identity.
> 
> also, the reason why i think Jonson distanced himself from Luther was that Jonson knew that Luther contemplated letting the bomb rigged ship explode at the end of _Decent of Angles_, thus killing him. even though Luther didnt, Lion knew he *considered* it. so he banished him (and his men) back to Caliban until he could decide how to deal with his (up until then) most trusted friend.


What got me with that, is why he sent Zal back as well. I figure it is because Johnson was afraid of the power that Zal and Ist have being librarians. And the battle which took part just before scared Johnson into believing that they were more powerful then him.

But then there was the part in the briefing room where Ist spoke about the phsyic bomb and Johnson was confused and hated being over shadowed. But again, why send back Zal, as he was argueablly one of the best warriors under Johnsons command.

I don't want any people to ruin it for me if it is cleared up in FOA as I'm about 80 pages in on it ... but from the sounds of it... with people being left to guess... I can safely assume the issue wasn't cleared up in the novel.

I just hate how they protray Johnson as a giant Dick... just like... I don't like you, so leave...


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

i thought AOD was a fantastic book and as a fan of Gav's i really hope they do ask him to write the next Dark Angel HH book if there is to be one because i truely believe no one could write it like he does. That aside i think one of the things about the Lion is that he does not like to loose and he does not like to be upstaged by anyone and it seemed to me that he was exiling more and more of his terran born sons to Calibian along with those that did not agree with how he thought or acted from the order. Zal being one of them and Luthor, a man that can claim to know him better then anyone.
no one knows what happened to Luthor in the years between his arrival and Luthor finding him and Gav even says that line..."becuase he was waiting to see who won" made the book. 

The dark angels are so shrouded in mystery that it is possible that the Lion was playing both coins, getting rid of those that might not follow him if he sided with Horus as the other Leigons had done, a sort of non killing clear house thing whilst attacking his errant brothers to look like he was striving to protect the emperor and all he had helped fight for. 
There will be many who accept Astelans comments as a basis for how close to the edge the Dark Angels walk and those who will not and that in itself is the beauty of that novel it lets you decide,. personally i think the lion was waiting to see who won and then prime himself to step into Horus's shoes if he failed it was only the destruction of Caliban and the susbsequent fight between Luthor and the Lion that halted that. I think its great that Luthor is still alive deep within the rock and awaits the lions return. on a side note i never discovered what happened about this Cyhpher...anyone care to enlighten me?


----------



## Roninman (Jul 23, 2010)

Me too would love for Gavin to make finale to this trilogy. Both books so far had me disappointed, although they werent bad. Was too wondering did Mike Lee read Angels of Darkness before this, surely lot of things is totally different. Dont know if its lies from characters part or writers error but that had me confused and disappointed.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

The important thing about Angels of Darkness is that we know that just because the fallen are traitors to the Dark Angels, it doesn't mean they are chaos.

Some information that we know:

-In Tharsis he created a world in which would follow the ideals of the Imperium
-He is not corrupted, and believes what he says is the truth
-He claims to be the one who ordered fire on the Lion's returning fleet.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm sorry but what?!



mal310 said:


> Just finished Angles of Darkness. I enjoyed it, but reading it has annoyed me. Fallen Angles (which I dislike even more now) and Angels of Darkness hardly match up to say the least!


And so what? They are written by two different authors at two different points in time. Its no wonder they do not match up, theres no reason they should be.



mal310 said:


> Honestly, did Mike Lee even bother to read this before starting his book??


Now for this bit, I am going to quote ADB because he said it best:



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Ultimately, no author is beholden to another: you don't need to base anything off someone else's ideas, especially if you think their ideas are awful. The exception here is the Horus Heresy series, where it's a linked series of novels planned together. But there's nothing to say Ultramarine Book X must reference Graham's work, or whatever.


This is true of these novels; Mike Lee does not have to write his story and make it fit in perfectly with whats written in _Angels of Darkness_.



mal310 said:


> I know that authors have their own take on events and I understand this. But the two books each have fundamental and completely different histories for the Dark Angles.


And there is nothing wrong with that, to quote ADB again for what was absolutely perfect:



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Now, I'm of the mind that we should tie stuff together, and I respect the people I work with, which is why (for example) you see tips of the cowboy hat to Si Spurrier's work in the old Night Lords novel.
> 
> But it's not a perfect system. A lot of these novels are written by different people at the same time, who do not know each other, and who cannot (literally, it's just not realistically feasible) have contact with each other regarding every aspect of continuity.
> 
> ...


Now in this case, people are actually more inclined to want to go with _Angels of Darkness_ being more correct.



mal310 said:


> AOD suggests that Luther was loyal (as does the opening blurb of Decent of Angels) but in FA he clearly was not. Astelan’s portrayal in FA is farcical to say the least and the whole thing seems a total mess.


And so what? Perhaps after all that time, Astelan became slightly delusional? Its not impossible that over time even the story behind something you are passionate about warps, maybe because its just to hard for you to accept the actual truth. Maybe deep down your really evil.



mal310 said:


> I really enjoy Black Libraries work but I have to hold them responsible for this shambles.


What shambles? Mike Lee has done nothing wrong here; he can reference, tip his hat, or use characters established elsewhere as they were in those novels if he wants to. Or he does not have to, its his choice as the author who was asked to write for that particular series.

Now I quoted most of a post (post 45 here) so I will finish by quoting the last of it:



Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Some people will say the Heresy series can ignore whatever it likes, and that only those novels have the authority to state what went on back then. Others will say, I'm sure, the Heresy series is purposefully out to retcon previous work.
> 
> Now, to 99.8% of readers, it won't matter at all. Even to those who have read both. But you watch - there'll always be a few that act like this is some grievous transgression against the natural order, and assign malicious ideas behind it all.


In this case, looks like some of you here make up the .2%


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

darkreever wins xD


----------



## cragnes417 (Jul 22, 2010)

Its pretty much perspective in this situation in truth we can only wonder what truly happened both side of dark angels. If it come's down to it i would wait and see what Lion EL johnson (or GW) has to say about it


----------



## mal310 (May 28, 2010)

darkreever said:


> I'm sorry but what?!


First up, are you Mike Lee?



darkreever said:


> And so what? They are written by two different authors at two different points in time. Its no wonder they do not match up, theres no reason they should be.


Hmmm what about these reasons.
1 They are about the same Legion 
2 There’re main topics are about the same events that shaped the legion.
3 They both cover three pivotal Dark Angels characters in both books (The Lion, Luther and Astellan). 
4 Most importantly, simple continuity, by your argument it would seem that you would find it perfectly reasonable for an author to come in and write a book about the Ultramarines and portray them as chaos worshiping berserkers who fought for Horus. Or how about a book about the loyal Angron defeating Horus. Doesn’t’ matter, its written by a different author so anything goes. 




darkreever said:


> Mike Lee does not have to write his story and make it fit in perfectly with whats written in _Angels of Darkness_.


The point I was trying to make is this. I don’t mind if the continuity is changed, however it must be changed for the better and for the good of the intellectual property as a whole. It’s been changed in the past and I agree with most of the changes. For example The Einstein story has changed dramatically from the original portrayal. A change I understand and appreciate. However to allow any author to come in and write whatever they want within very loose boarders, I feel, cheapens the IP considerably. It should not be beyond the ability of a good author to incorporate past history so that it fits their story. 
I believe that Mike Lee’s attempt at Fallen Angles fell short on many many levels. His change in the history from AOD was FUNDAMENTAL not mearly ‘_not fitting in perfectly’_. This was not minor tinkering. This was a completely different portrayal of the monumental events that shaped the Dark Angels and goes directly to the core of who they are. If the story by Mike Lee had been great and it portrayed the fall in a more interesting way to that suggested in AOD then I would have accepted this quite happily. However Mike created a story with characters so bland and boring that I struggled not to fall asleep (Sergeant Kohl was blander than a meal of boiled rice topped with plain pasta and his squad members had less individual personality than a bunch of star wars battle droids). His new improved story of the fall consisted of Luther dabbling with chaos because of his own pride and jealously, amongst other things. *Well that’s thoroughly original.* Compared to works such as Legion, it’s just hopeless. 


You quote ADB, someone who I respect enormously as an author. He’s also stated (and I hope he corrects me if I’m wrong) that he researches a topic thoroughly before writing about it. He's stated in the past that he reads what other authors have written and all the material GW can provide him with on the topic. 

The post you have quoted is about his upcoming book The First Heretic (which I can’t wait for) and its discrepancies from Dark Creed. He states that his idea for TFH was presented and Ok’d by Black Library before Dark Creed was even released. The blame has to lie at Black Library’s door for any discrepancies. In any event I doubt the differences are as fundamental and I bet ADB story is better and more interesting than that which has gone before. 
Gav Thrope set the scene magnificently in AOD and I just get the impression that Mike Lee didn’t even bother to read it! If he had how can his portrayal of Astellan be so poor? If he was going to use him in such a dreadful way (reaver worms anyone?) then why on earth use him at all? 


It’s not about 2 percent who are paranoid about grievous transgressions because of evil maliciousiounes. Its about what people are willing to part with their hard earned for. I buy a book because I want to be entertained when I read it and I expect effort from the author who writes it. 

With Fallen Angels I felt I got neither. 

In the end the proof is in the pudding. I don’t believe that Fallen Angels was received critically well at all, although I do accept that some people enjoyed it. I have no idea what Gav Thorpe thought of it but I can speculate in my mind. I don’t know what the sales were compared to other HH books, but I bet this, Mike Lee will never again write another HH novel.


----------



## Old Man (Jul 24, 2010)

I feel that mal310 perhaps states it best: people who rad AOD are disappointed by Descent of Angels and Fallen Angels as they depart from what has been written in an earlier book. 
As I never read AOD I cannot comment on that, unfortunately. All I can say ist that I found both books entertaining and they offered me insights I did not have previously. Again however - had I known AOD before my reaction might have been different. 
Perhaps somone can explain (point for point) in which way Descent of Angels and Fallen Angels change the established history of the Dark Angels? 
I'm not such a Dark Angels fan that I noticed something very wrong....
Could someone enlighten me?


----------



## mal310 (May 28, 2010)

Old Man said:


> Perhaps somone can explain (point for point) in which way Descent of Angels and Fallen Angels change the established history of the Dark Angels?
> I'm not such a Dark Angels fan that I noticed something very wrong....
> Could someone enlighten me?


This is going to contain huge spoilers so please be aware. Apologies that this is not more detailed but I’ve currently lent my Angles of Darkness book to my brother. 

Here is a quick summery. 

Angels of Darkness concerns the capture of a fallen Dark Angel by the name of Astelan and his interrogation by Chaplain Boreas. In it Astelan explains that he is and was loyal and that Luther was also. He states that Luther wanted the Legion on Caliban to go and fight Horus when they discovered the Heresy. 
He goes on to point out to Boreas that of all the loyal chapters, the Dark Angles appeared to do very little if anything during the heresy. He states the reason for this was that the Lion was waiting to see which side won. Astelan admitted that he ordered the attack against the Lion because of this treachery against the Emperor. 
Now of course the beginning of the fall is covered in Fallen Angels and it in no way matches the above. There is still some wriggle room for any author who picks up the story (Gav hopefully) from the end of Fallen Angles. I feel the situation can still be rescued by a good author. 
There are other differences in the books but this is where the major discrepancies exist. 

Now some might say that Astelan was lying when interrogated. However the whole book was about Boreas journey to the truth and why Astelan was not lying. 
Now Gav Thorpe portrays this all much better than that and I thoroughly recommend the book, it’s a great read. 
Interestingly the opening blurb of Descent of Angles hints that Luther was loyal also (page 17). 
Hope that helps.


----------



## Old Man (Jul 24, 2010)

I see...
Thank's mal - this _does _put a different light on the proceedings of Descent of Angels and Fallen Angels. Especially the situation on Caliban proceeds differently from what you outlined above. In Fallen Angels it seems more like Luther wants to use the Heresy as a chance to break away from the Imperium. Also he seemingly wants to use chaos as a weapon against the Imperium.
Well, I agree with you: there is still room for a good author to bring the two stories back into line, but it will not be easy.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I understand what Darkreever says, but I have to admit disregarding information from previous books is kind like... well okay your going to do this but theres already fluff out there that needs elaboration. In my opinion I did not like _Fallen Angel_ as I felt a lot of the secrecy that was created in _Decent of Angels_ were destroyed. Either by writing style or whatever.The characters were no longer dark and mysterious but just real boring and everything unoriginal one would think about when first reading the 2nd edition DA codex. Both Dan Abnet and Graham McNeill both say they have collections of Warhammer books and fluff in their libraries that they revert to. Even codexes. And if indeed ADB does too you can see a pattern of success and sense to their writings to all three authors.

If both ADB and Darkreever are saying that the Heresy fluff is or will becomming the more acceptable form for information then I got to say, that DA part feels a little out of whack to me, but so hey... So does _Battle of the Abyss_. The good thing about that novel though is that you can ignore that novel as it doesn't destroy the integrity for any particular Legion, (Word Bearers are getting their own novel and I'm sure the Ultrabois will too). Fallen Angel has made the DA story a bit bumpy by the least


----------

