# Eh, what !?!? ( MAJOR Fear To Tread spoilers, beware )



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

OK the book was an excellent read as usual by James Swallow ( and me being biased as a Blood Angels player :wink, but here is something that I simply cannot wrap my mind around :



How the hell does Roboute Guilliman have an Astronomican/telepathic beacon OF HIS OWN, and JUST AS POWERFUL as the EMPEROR'S !?!? I mean WTF lol ?

Also, It was never, ever mentioned that the Blood Angels and Sanguinius went to Ultramar & met Roboute right after Signus and before Terra. Is this a retcon, or a MAJOR secret that was never revealed to us ? 


Yeah, it is as wacky as it sounds, but is awesome and 

we can now understand why Guilliman was considered such a genius and the best tactician in the Imperium :biggrin: 


P.S. Amit the Flesh Tearer is a badass.


----------



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

Lord Mephiston said:


> OK the book was an excellent read as usual by James Swallow ( and me being biased as a Blood Angels player :wink, but here is something that I simply cannot wrap my mind around :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My guess,



It has something to do with that thing that the Dark Angels took from the Death Guard in _The Lion_, Jonson did mention that Guilliman would want it for himself.


Your damn right he is. Amit has the biggest stones of any Space Marine we've ever seen. :biggrin:


LotN


----------



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

What's weird is that Lion did not let Guilliman get his hands on that. He stopped Roboute from getting the sphere, but this is completely Roboute's own psychic beacon, that is what's strange. Maybe Guilliman was actually the strongest primarch, not Horus, but it's supposed to be classified info or something lol. After all, He did hold the Imperium together and was primarily responsible for the organisation of the 40k Imperium. We NEED more info in a hurry. I don't like the way the BL authors are being so vague about these things. Just let it out already FFS...


Yeah I always wondered who would be tougher. Angry World Eaters, Angry Space Wolves or Angry Blood Angels. 

I'm willing to bet now that Flesh Tearers ( in 40k ) Death Company would whoop the ass of Space Wolf 13th company, Wulfen included, any day of the week :biggrin:

P.S. Don't forget, the Flesh Tearer is badass, but the Black Knight was always THE BEST in the 30k era :wink:


----------



## Lord of Ruin (Jul 22, 2012)

The question you got to ask yourselves is this, what happened to Guillimans Astronomican because in 40k their is only one and thats on Terra?


----------



## piemelke (Oct 13, 2010)

well could that be what lorgar and angron are doing in ultramar ?


----------



## Romolo (Sep 6, 2010)

Probably will feature in Betrayer, and then in Abnets Unremembered Empire. The rise and fall of Guilliman's Imperium Secundus.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Fear to Tread was rather disappointing


----------



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

MontytheMighty said:


> Fear to Tread was rather disappointing


Care to elaborate?


LotN


----------



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

Lord of the Night said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> 
> LotN


Yeah elaborate please. This was JS at his finest. After reading all of his BA books, I don't think any Blood Angels fan can get anything better for a HH novel.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

After disappointing Fantasy period, I came back to HH with avengeance. After checking out DBC/ADBs facefuck page, and seeing one of his deleted lines (salt the fucking earth!), and reading so far a quarter into the book, im ratimg this at Prospero Burns, Legion, Know NoFear and The First Heretic Standard. Easily top 5, possibly even top 3 to date. (1. KNF, 2. TFH. 3... ???)


----------



## increaso (Jun 5, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> Fear to Tread was rather disappointing


I would be interested to hear your reasons, because I found the book to be average at best (almost to the extent that I thought, for a short time, that the really positive reviews were disingenuous) and would be interested to hear what you found disappointing. 

Personally, for me, ii is derived almost entirely from the fact that the characters were not engaging at all and therefore nearly every point that probably should have caused goosebumps (if I had been invested in the characters) just came across as cheese (e.g. when/how Sanguinius falls). I also felt that the internal legion conflicts felt contrived rather than natural. 

I also found that it lacked dialogue and focussed on unnecessary description.

I did like somethings. In particular: most of the scenes that focussed on the antagonists, the connections to previous events, the questions left at the end (for the direction of the larger arc) and that not only text-book daemons were present.

Perhaps I had an expectation of something a bit more grand or different.

I certainly wouldn't place the book in my top 5. Probably at the top end of the bottom 5. Just to explain that this is not Jim Swallow hate, I should add that I place FOTE in my top 5 and would probably rate Nemesis higher (even if it didn't match my thoughts on assassins and the ending was inevitable).


----------



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

Vaz said:


> After disappointing Fantasy period, I came back to HH with avengeance. After checking out DBC/ADBs facefuck page, and seeing one of his deleted lines (salt the fucking earth!), and reading so far a quarter into the book, im ratimg this at Prospero Burns, Legion, Know NoFear and The First Heretic Standard. Easily top 5, possibly even top 3 to date. (1. KNF, 2. TFH. 3... ???)


I personally think FtT is better than KNF and TFH, and considering that I consider ADB to be leagues ahead of Abnett, McNeill and Swallow, that shows how good I think FtT is.


LotN


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

After all we've just had a discussion how Darius Hinks is far from vinegar strokes for me


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

increaso said:


> I would be interested to hear your reasons, because I found the book to be average at best (almost to the extent that I thought, for a short time, that the really positive reviews were disingenuous) and would be interested to hear what you found disappointing.
> 
> Personally, for me, ii is derived almost entirely from the fact that the characters were not engaging at all and therefore nearly every point that probably should have caused goosebumps (if I had been invested in the characters) just came across as cheese (e.g. when/how Sanguinius falls). I also felt that the internal legion conflicts felt contrived rather than natural.
> 
> ...




#1 Swallow's writing is bland. You want eloquent dialogue, striking imagery, vivid prose? Go read Abnett or ADB. Swallow's prose fails to deliver 

#2 The characters are bland. Raldoron, Azkaellon, Kano, and Meros are all boring, boring character. The former two are too alike and the latter two are too alike 

#3 Swallow could've dealt with the fall of Signus in greater detail (yes, the book is about Astartes, but non-Astartes subplots, not too long of course, are fine if they serve the story)...or he could've skipped it entirely. The few pages in the book are too short to serve any purpose

#4 Space Wolves completely wasted...would've been a great opportunity to throw in some great dialogue and interaction, instead they are mentioned briefly and then killed off


----------



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

How interesting do you want gene-enhanced killing machines with a very very serious rage & blood drinking disorder to be ? 

lol that "characters aren't interesting, personalities are too bland" thing is hilarious. It's like watching a Chuck Norris, or Schewarzenegger or Van Damme action movie and complaining that there's Coronation Street-esque drama in it. Those Space Marines are doing their JOB ( the thing that they were created for ) and more, just fine IMHO.

What're we gonna hear next ? C.L. Werner didn't add any romance in his upcoming Iron Warriors Battles novel ?


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Lord Mephiston said:


> How interesting do you want gene-enhanced killing machines with a very very serious rage & blood drinking disorder to be ?
> 
> lol that "characters aren't interesting, personalities are too bland" thing is hilarious. It's like watching a Chuck Norris, or Schewarzenegger or Van Damme action movie and complaining that there's Coronation Street-esque drama in it. Those Space Marines are doing their JOB ( the thing that they were created for ) and more, just fine IMHO.
> 
> What're we gonna hear next ? C.L. Werner didn't add any romance in his upcoming Iron Warriors Battles novel ?


Stop with the strawman arguments please...

Not only are the characters bland, the _writing_ is bland too

If you think that genetically enhanced super-soldiers can't be made into interesting characters with some depth...let's just say (1) I'm glad you don't write 40K fiction and (2) go read some ADB


----------



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

I must say - as a preliminary opinion having not quite finished the book yet - that I agree with _Monty_. I am really struggling to get through it; the characters are unengaging and Swallow's prose is just dull. Sanguinius' portrayal is also distinctly average. I'll post my full thoughts when i've finished it in a couple days.


----------



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

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Swallow's prose is just dull.


That seems to be the major complaint, and it's one I can't understand.

I like Swallow's prose. And honestly when it comes to prose unless its really markedly different from the other BL authors I find it hard to understand why so many people say that the prose is bad. I can tell which prose is better than the others but Swallow's does not feel bad to me, I was never bored while reading Fear to Tread. I've had a harder time reading some Abnett books.

That said Swallow is a writer that you either love or hate, i'm on the former side of the two. The sole exception that nearly everyone loves seems to be _Flight of the Eisenstein_.


LotN


----------



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> Stop with the strawman arguments please...
> 
> Not only are the characters bland, the _writing_ is bland too
> 
> If you think that genetically enhanced super-soldiers can't be made into interesting characters with some depth...let's just say (1) I'm glad you don't write 40K fiction and (2) go read some ADB


Seems like you'd be better off reading Star Wars than WH40k. 

Adeptus Astartes are cold blooded killers, with the only difference being the motivation to kill. I.e. which side of the fence theyre on. 

Yeah ADB humanised them alot in his books, but that's as far as they're gonna get. No oscar-winning performances or bleeding-heart carebears to be had here. 

Steve Parker, Rob Sanders & Chris Wraight got the legionnaires just right.


----------



## increaso (Jun 5, 2010)

Lord Mephiston said:


> Seems like you'd be better off reading Star Wars than WH40k.
> 
> Adeptus Astartes are cold blooded killers, with the only difference being the motivation to kill. I.e. which side of the fence theyre on.
> 
> ...


I accept that in 40k they have to craft the characters a bit more than the lore would necessarily allow. The codex presents the Astartes as psycho-indoctrinated war machines. Even then, there is scope for decent characters.

30k is a lot different. The Astartes are not brainwashed. They are almost human in character.

But that's just an in-world excuse for expecting better.

I would add that there are plenty of decent space marine characters in the 20(?) odd books that have been produced in the series so far.

It appears that you are actually saying that the HH shouldn't try to do something interesting and engaging and should instead be dull.

You want Rambo or most Arnie films, whilst others quite justifiably want Full Metal Jacket or Thin Red Line or Apocalypse Now. Each to their own.


----------



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

Lord Mephiston said:


> Seems like you'd be better off reading Star Wars than WH40k.
> 
> Adeptus Astartes are cold blooded killers, with the only difference being the motivation to kill. I.e. which side of the fence theyre on.
> 
> ...


Regardless of how Astartes should or shouldn't be portrayed, they can certainly still be compelling characters, despite their inhuman nature. From what I have read of _Fear to Tread_ so far, none of the characters are particularly compelling.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Lord Mephiston said:


> No oscar-winning performances or bleeding-heart carebears to be had here.


Great, I never said I wanted carebear Astartes, please stop with the exaggeration...

Chris Wraight is good, Swallow is not


----------



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

MontytheMighty said:


> Chris Wraight is good, Swallow is not


I think they are both great, Wraight is usually better I admit but even his best work, _Luthor Huss_ and _Battle of the Fang_, don't match _Fear to Tread_ in my opinion.


LotN


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Why the fuck is there an advert for 'large cup lingerie'? whatisthisidonteven


----------



## Matcap (Aug 23, 2012)

Lord Mephiston said:


> Seems like you'd be better off reading Star Wars than WH40k.
> 
> Adeptus Astartes are cold blooded killers, with the only difference being the motivation to kill. I.e. which side of the fence theyre on.
> 
> ...



You can't really discount the (for me) great portrayal of characters like the Mournival, Argel Tal, Lucius, Garro. These stories hold more interest for me than the, "get to tha choppa" bolter-porn. Yes SM are post-human killers, but isn't that the point of a lot of the books? They are engineered to be weapons, but find themselves struggling with their lot in life and how to interact with regular humans and the rest of the imperium around them.

For me at least this is one of the most interesting themes in the HH series.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

"Fear to Tread" is a good book, in my humble opinion, but not necessarily a great one. While I think "Fear to Tread" ranks highly in terms of his overall Black Library work, "Flight of the Eisenstein" remain's Mr. Swallow's best work for the Heresy specifically.

I share MontytheMighty's feelings in regards to the quality of the characters. The quality of the cast, versus that featured in "Flight of the Eisenstein", is the number one reason I couldn't get into this novel as eagerly.

*Sanguinius* is depicted excellently. Swallow does a terrific job bringing him to life. Kudos - I felt the character did justice to the concept and themes we've seen for so many years in Codices, etc. No real complaints there.

From that point, though? Sanguinius is never meant to be the focal point of the story. It's not told through his eyes, and it doesn't focus on his actions primarily. He's used to great effect to spice up the story and up the ante in terms of action, but he's not the reader's vehicle. Who is that vehicle? Well, in "Flight of the Eisenstein", we had Nathaniel Garro - a fully fleshed and developed "POV" character. There is no equivalent in "Fear to Tread". Screen time is split between Chapter Master Raldoron, Apothecary Meros, and former Librarian Kano, but neither of those three characters amounts to more than a secondary cast character in terms of how much they resonated with me.

I felt the storyline and pace were rather good, though I did have three complaints... one minor, one moderate, and one rather severe:
1. First is my constant complaint about so many Black Library novels - the lack of risk, and imaginative thinking when it comes to writing a battle of the Legiones Astartes. That is, the willingness to just draw up a simple medieval melee of Space Marine phalanxes, with the "twist" being the Blood Angels showing up en masse from the sky. There's just so much room to wow the reader in such epic scenes, but I inevitable have to just force through them instead.

2. Second, the wasted pages where the Blood Angels...


... visit the living planet that starts throwing city parts, etc., at them.

I'm really not sure what that was supposed to accomplish, but it struck me as silly in my mind's eye. It didn't add to the horror of Signus that Swallow seemed to be building towards. 

3. Third, the disappointing attempt to build up a sort of psychological horror with the Chaotic plot at Signus Cluster. I thought Swallow did a good job at the _very end of it,_ ...


... when the psychic wave just drives everyone nuts and the Admiral forces the Red Tear to crash unto Signus Prime...

... but the fact of the matter is that such massive effects are signature Chaos deus-ex-machina effects. It was possible because this was Chaos, and huge Chaos rituals do this. A great chance was missed in terms of the build-up, though.

Lest we forget, the first five books of the series weren't successful just because of the fan-favorite Space Marines, but also because we had these sympathetic normal humans through whom we could register the growing dismay, fear, and disappointment that came with the gradual fall of their Astartes heroes. Even "Fulgrim", which I thought featured lackluster Remembrancers, did a good job of conveying that breakdown. In "Fear to Tread", though, throughout that rising action Swallow _tells_ me more than he _shows_ me.

I don't want to sound too negative. I did say, after all, that I thought this was a *good* book, and I did enjoy it - overall. The above are simply the reasons why I didn't think it was *great,* and why I wasn't torn by the fact that I couldn't sit and read it every evening since I bought the eBook.


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> 2. Second, the wasted pages where the Blood Angels...
> 
> 
> ... visit the living planet that starts throwing city parts, etc., at them.
> ...


Are you high?! :shok:

That scene was fantastic. The horror of a city coming to life and stalking the Blood Angels, monsters rising from the concrete to merge into abominations. Plus it shows just how out of their depth the Blood Angels are in this situation. If Bloodletters had come it would have been much worse in combat terms for them but it wouldn't have been as scary, because Bloodletters could be written off as some particularly horrible alien. But street signs and trash cans merging into creatures that can kill Astartes? That is supernatural and they cannot deny it, that makes the scene much more horrifying.


LotN


----------



## Lord Mephiston (Sep 16, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> 2. Second, the wasted pages where the Blood Angels...
> 
> 
> ... visit the living planet that starts throwing city parts, etc., at them.
> ...



The whole city was a Daemon City, like it was literally alive. Yeah it's crazy, but that's exactly what Chaos is all about. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the usual bloodletter + daemonnetes of Slaanesh ambushes we've already read about in other books. JS kept things fresh here, the state of the corpses found in the wreckage was also something unusual. 

It's all about the 30k era. If this were 40k, then the moment the ship captain looked at what was going on in the Signus system system, she'd just pick up her phone & dial 1800-ORDO-MALLEUS. 

But in 30k, hardly anyone on the loyalist side even knows what Chaos really is. They've never faced or seen things like this before, whereas in 40k, pimp-slapping a couple of Bloodthirsters is just another day in the office for a Grey Knight.

That's what makes this scene and the book unique. There's a first time for everything, and this book is all about the Blood Angels' "first time".


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Lord of the Night said:


> Are you high?! :shok:


No, I'm quite sober. 



> That scene was fantastic. The horror of a city coming to life and stalking the Blood Angels, monsters rising from the concrete to merge into abominations.


To each their own. I thought it was over-the-top in the worst way - in the sense that it relied on sheer size alone.



> Plus it shows just how out of their depth the Blood Angels are in this situation. If Bloodletters had come it would have been much worse in combat terms for them but it wouldn't have been as scary, ...


That's just it. It wasn't scary. There was no horror. The horror was contained entirely in the flight sequence prior to their "landing" on that planet. _That_ scene was very well done.

Once they got on the ground, if anything, Mr. Swallow did well by _not_ trying to sell it as a "scary" scene, since a Space Marine would be shocked by such a concept at best. In the end, whatever "horror" the planetside scene might of offered was rendered null by the equally heavy-handed way in which the Space Marines dealt with the threat - it robbed it of its impact.

Mr. Swallow opted to waste twenty (iPad-sized eBook) pages on a plot point that didn't advance the story in any way, and left me struggling to see how it was in any way "scary". He could have focused toward character development or depicting _actual_ horror - vis a vis the almost completely unexplored human members of the fleet. Instead, we got largely casual mentions of Remembrancers, crew, etc., committing suicide in droves until the final arrival at Signus Prime. Had there been more meaningful characters (including, say, a mortal one or two - like the ones used to such great effect in "Horus Rising", "False Gods", etc.), this is where you would have seen the emotional and psychological impact of the story.

The worst part of this is that Mr. Swallow showed he _could_ write such scenes very well. Not just the situation that leads poor Baniol to make an "impromptu landing", but the scene where the officers of the warship "Helios" are attacked by the powers of the Warp as well. More of _that_ would have been amazing! And it should have been a no-brainer: the insidious, maddening, horrific nature of the Warp and the effect it has on mere mortals, or...



... a giant city comes alive and tries to squash Space Marines before Sanguinius Exterminatus it!


It's literally the difference between watching the highlights of Stanley Kubric's movie version of "The Shining" versus a few minutes of Shia LaBeouf running from a gargantuan alien bent on his destruction. :wink:

So yeah, I found Mr. Swallow's priorities to be disappointing. I'm sorry you don't agree, but certain novels in this series have raised my bar of expectations to a high point. Given this, I cannot arbitrarily applaud stories that are just decent, good, okay, etc. I enjoyed "Fear to Tread", but it could have been so much more.

Again, though, to each their own. 

Cheers,
P.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Edit


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Trash can/traffic sign monsters are a bit cheesy, yes



Matcap said:


> Yes SM are post-human killers, but isn't that the point of a lot of the books? They are engineered to be weapons, but find themselves struggling with their lot in life and how to interact with regular humans and the rest of the imperium around them.
> 
> For me at least this is one of the most interesting themes in the HH series.


Yes the lodges show us that though they are post-human killers, they (well, some of them) still crave a bit of human interaction outside the chain of command. Brotherhood and camaraderie is almost an emotional need of Astartes. They're designed to be the perfect team-players after all


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm with Monty, CotE and others on this. Really wanted to like the book and its characters, but just couldn't get into it, felt like I had to force read it, which is rare for Heresy books, was almost as much as a struggle as The Outcast Dead, difference being this was one of the major events of the heresy. 

The characters were beyond bland and not engaging. Raldoron was one of the characters of the Heresy I was really looking forward to reading about, but he just seemed so....generic. Pretty much all the other First Captains we have seen, have been very distinct and interesting, really showing how they gained that rank. Raldoron could've been a captain of any line company, nothing set him apart to justify his rank. Azkaellon was also just as dull, one dimensional and generally quite annoying in every scene he was in, yet again another character I had been looking forward to. 



The Space Wolves, as others have said were utterly wasted and pointless as well. Existing soley for the scene where Amit and co kill them. Not only that but they just didn't seem to be portrayed as they have been since Prospero Burns, once again very generic, other writers(Chirs Wraight) have written the new Space Wolves just as well as Abnett first did, but they just felt lacking in FtT.

As for people saying they are Astartes and using that as an excuse for boring or bland characters, have you even read the rest of the series? Loken, Tarvitz, Garro, Lucius, Argel Tal, Corswain, Ahriman, and more have all been excellent characters with alot of personality, depth and interest. So sorry, that's a terrible excuse for justifying bad characters.

Out of time out here but will come back another time to address more points. But for now, disappointed.


----------



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

I suppose this book has received a typical James Swallow reception then. You either love it (Me, Bane of Kings, Shadowhawk2008) or you hate it (Monty, CotE and Angel of Blood). A shame really as I had hoped Signus was one of those events that meant everybody could enjoy this, and yet _Flight of the Eisenstein_ remains his most popular work whereas I don't consider FotE to be in the Top 5.

It boils down to whether or not you like James Swallow. If you do then you'll love this book, and judging from reviews and comments across the net this book has converted quite a few. But if you really don't like him then you'll hate _Fear to Tread_.


LotN


----------



## randian (Feb 26, 2009)

What's the deal with Erebus having his face removed by Horus? Erebus has always been described as having his face and scalp covered with tattooed script. How can this be if Horus skinned him alive? We know that Space Marines do not regenerate damage like that. Witness the numerous examples of facial augmetics on Space Marines.

The same scene also displays Horus' delusions that he is in charge. Horus still doesn't get that with Chaos, ultimate power = ultimate slavery.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I like to say "I said this would happen".

And I am.

James Swallow shouldn't have been allowed near this book. He's shit. When will everyone stop defending him so unnecessarily? FtT should have been a top 5 book. It isn't. It isn't well written at all, and now it's bland. ADB would have smashed it EASILY into a top 3 position, simply because for a good author, this material to work with is a trump card. An epic part of the HH story. And yet, here we have a big book of bland. A huge showhouse on a newly developed housing estate, with its interior entirely painted in a neutral but tasteless magnolia. That's the depth of James Swallow.

Something about Guilliman and a beacon: Just ignore it. It's yet another sign of all the BL authors being pressured into constantly magnifying the awesomeness of the UM. I have no idea why they bother; they'll always be as bland as fuck no matter how hard anyone tries. It's like flogging a dead horse. Just when you think they've done hyping the crap out of them, another author brings some more random nonsense to light.


----------



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

Baltar said:


> I like to say "I said this would happen".
> 
> And I am.
> 
> ...


From what i've read of your comments you would have hated it no matter how it turned out. Even if every single one of us were singing its praises you'd still hate it, this is judging from what i've seen you post about the other novels and about Swallow in particular.

You hate him. We get it.


LotN


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Lord of the Night said:


> It boils down to whether or not you like James Swallow. If you do then you'll love this book, and judging from reviews and comments across the net this book has converted quite a few. But if you really don't like him then you'll hate _Fear to Tread_.
> 
> 
> LotN


No... It doesn't boil down to that.

I have no problem with James Swallow. I enjoyed "Nemesis" and loved "Flight of the Eisenstein". Again, I *liked* "Fear to Tread", but I reserve the right to call out ludicrous scenes and point out that the character cast was disappointing. I'm sorry, man, but you're artificially simplifying opinions here. There's quite a wide range of opinions besides the extremes that you and Baltar represent.


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> No... It doesn't boil down to that.
> 
> I have no problem with James Swallow. I enjoyed "Nemesis" and loved "Flight of the Eisenstein". Again, I *liked* "Fear to Tread", but I reserve the right to call out ludicrous scenes and point out that the character cast was disappointing. I'm sorry, man, but you're artificially simplifying opinions here. There's quite a wide range of opinions besides the extremes that you and Baltar represent.


Okay fine,

It seems the two major complaints are the prose and the characters. You either like the characters or you don't. That seems to be the primary divide, I really liked the cast but many don't.


LotN


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I think the comment regarding the characters is fair... insofar as most of the posters here are concerned.

I don't know, man. Tell me your thoughts on it. Without me sounding rude, on what basis do you think that Raldoron, Meros, or Kano are anywhere near as developed as the characters "Flight of the Eisenstein" or other well-received novels?


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> I think the comment regarding the characters is fair... insofar as most of the posters here are concerned.
> 
> I don't know, man. Tell me your thoughts on it. Without me sounding rude, on what basis do you think that Raldoron, Meros, or Kano are anywhere near as developed as the characters "Flight of the Eisenstein" or other well-received novels?


I'll go by each character.

First off Kano. He is the one that baffles me the most as to why people dislike him. Kano was brilliant and his personal story of an Ex-Librarian is one that i've always wondered about. I too felt it was monstrously unfair to the Librarians to be shoved back into the ranks, to lose their precious wargear and to be treated with suspicion for the actions of Magnus the Red. Kano's dislike of his station, his anger towards Annellus for basically being the equivalent of his Legion outrightly telling him they do not trust him and expect him to betray them like Magnus did. And his desire to break through those Edicts and use his powers to save his Primarch were a great conundrum for him, break Nikea and his oaths or watch his Primarch die. I really enjoyed Kano's choices as they were the choices I would have made and because he was sympathetic.

Meros next. Meros's knowledge of what will happen in the Heresy added a nice layer to his character, and his self-sacrifice to save Sanguinius was nothing short of pure heroism. But I liked how he tried to understand what was happening at Signus. His conversations with the Blank were also enjoyable, especially when he lost his temper at her rememberances of the Davin Envoy, I felt that moment showed just how repugnant that such thoughts were to Meros. And his final moments were amazing, his realization that Rafen was right and that Sanguinius will die. He thinks he might have prevented it which is sadly not true as we all know, and of course the Red Angel's confirmation that a very small part of Meros still exists, enough to be horrified at what has happened to him was chilling.

Raldoron I liked because he was the loyal officer, trying to keep order in the midst of Chaos. Yet he never once boasted, gloried in his own efforts, took any real credit or desired recognition. Truly the humble Captain that we've heard about and somebody to be respected for bringing some order to the chaos that overtook the Legion and the fleet. Plus I enjoyed his scenes with Azkaellon, the more trusting individual when compared to Azkaellon's rampant suspicion of everything.


One question I do pose to everybody here. What do you all think of Amit? All of you cite the same characters as dull, but what about the Flesh Tearer?

I personally think he rocked, and when he accused Horus of treachery to Sanguinius's face... that is one of the Heresy's best moments in my opinion, right up there with the Death of Saul Tarvitz, La Maraviglia, Leman Russ and Magnus the Red dueling, Argel Tal and the Gal Vorbak killing the Custodes on Istvaan, and many other utterly brilliant moments.


LotN


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> I'll go by each character.
> 
> First off Kano. He is the one that baffles me the most as to why people dislike him. Kano was brilliant and his personal story of an Ex-Librarian is one that i've always wondered about. I too felt it was monstrously unfair to the Librarians to be shoved back into the ranks, to lose their precious wargear and to be treated with suspicion for the actions of Magnus the Red. Kano's dislike of his station, his anger towards Annellus for basically being the equivalent of his Legion outrightly telling him they do not trust him and expect him to betray them like Magnus did. And his desire to break through those Edicts and use his powers to save his Primarch were a great conundrum for him, break Nikea and his oaths or watch his Primarch die. I really enjoyed Kano's choices as they were the choices I would have made and because he was sympathetic.
> 
> ...


I really think you're mistaking mediocrity for brilliance but to each his own...


----------



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

MontytheMighty said:


> I really think you're mistaking mediocrity for brilliance but to each his own...


Well that's your view. I myself have some similar views on other books. Like _Legion_, I really don't think its one of the Top 5 Heresy books like many claim, or that it's as good as many people say.

I also really liked _Nemesis_.


LotN


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I'll also echo Phobeus in that I don't dislike Swallow. I'll not deny that I would have rather had one of the power horses like Abnett, ADB or Mcneil write about Signus, but I don't have any problem with Swallow, I also really, really liked FotE, definitely up there as one of my favourites of the series, Garro proving Swallow can write good characters, but again FtT lacked.

The one scene I did really like however along with my favourite quote from the books(there aren't many but I really liked this one) Is when Sanguinius tears off Ka'Bandhas wing and says 'Only angels may fly' before throwing him off the edge.

I'll concede Amit was probably one of the only characters I thought was remotely interesting, especially when he doesn't shrink away from calling Horus a traitor. But he just wasn't in it enough, so very almost a background character, and I generally dislike everything to do with Wolves including their eventual fate. I was quite excited when the Wolves arrived, thought Swallow could have done really well with them. Horus placing his agents within the IX Legion in the form of the Word Bearers and the Sigilitte putting his own men with them in the form of the Wolves, sadly that's not how it panned out.

You say you liked Raldoron, but how did he justify his position of First Captain to you? Once again I found nothing special about him at all, sure he's very loyal, but then so are so many other characters in the series, kind of moot. Was it Corswain or Alajos(or even Argel Tal perhaps? really can't remember) in Savage Weapons who upon seeing Sevetar goes on to mention the other great First Captains who could be his match, including Raldoron. But from what I read of him in FtT, I can't see him standing up to any of the other First Captains seen so far except perhaps Gage, and plenty of other regular captains would give him a run about from what we see of him.

Another thing is I was really looking forward to seeing what made the Blood Angels different pre-Heresy when all the other Legions were so diverse. The Luna Wolves have the Mournival, the lots that get chosen for the spear tips, the lodges, the (deserved)arrogance yet easy going manner. The Emperors Children had the Brotherhood of the Pheonix, the Lord Commanders and perfection angle. The Thousand Sons don't really need to have much more said for how different they were, same with the Wolves/Vlka Fenryka and the Alpha Legions. But the Blood Angels just seemed so.....Ultramarine tbh, sure they had the Sanguinary Guard, but they were literally just really nice looking bodyguard and ultimately weren't very interesting at all, but generally they just seemed very very generic and didn't really stand out at all.


----------



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

Angel of Blood said:


> The one scene I did really like however along with my favourite quote from the books(there aren't many but I really liked this one) Is when Sanguinius tears off Ka'Bandhas wing and says 'Only angels may fly' before throwing him off the edge.


Indeed that was a brilliant moment. I also loved the part when Kyriss goes mad and rants about how they should love and praise him for what he's done and then Sanguinius skewers him.



Angel of Blood said:


> I'll concede Amit was probably one of the only characters I thought was remotely interesting, especially when he doesn't shrink away from calling Horus a traitor. But he just wasn't in it enough, so very almost a background character, and I generally dislike everything to do with Wolves including their eventual fate. I was quite excited when the Wolves arrived, thought Swallow could have done really well with them. Horus placing his agents within the IX Legion in the form of the Word Bearers and the Sigilitte putting his own men with them in the form of the Wolves, sadly that's not how it panned out.


But that is how it turned out. Both the Sigilite and Horus put agents in the Blood Angels, both made their plays and failed. As for Amit I admit I would have liked to see more of him but i'm sure we will down the line which I look forward too, especially to see how his guilt over Redknife will affect him.



Angel of Blood said:


> You say you liked Raldoron, but how did he justify his position of First Captain to you? Once again I found nothing special about him at all, sure he's very loyal, but then so are so many other characters in the series, kind of moot. Was it Corswain or Alajos(or even Argel Tal perhaps? really can't remember) in Savage Weapons who upon seeing Sevetar goes on to mention the other great First Captains who could be his match, including Raldoron. But from what I read of him in FtT, I can't see him standing up to any of the other First Captains seen so far except perhaps Gage, and plenty of other regular captains would give him a run about from what we see of him.


Easy. Everything I said is why Raldoron is the great First Captain that Corswain declared him to be. He is loyal, steady, trustworthy and humble. He's good at what he does and doesn't need accolades for it, he can always be counted on and doesn't shirk away from the dangerous tasks that he asks of those under him.

Also neither Argel Tal nor the Word Bearers were even mentioned in _Savage Weapons_. 



Angel of Blood said:


> Another thing is I was really looking forward to seeing what made the Blood Angels different pre-Heresy when all the other Legions were so diverse. The Luna Wolves have the Mournival, the lots that get chosen for the spear tips, the lodges, the (deserved)arrogance yet easy going manner. The Emperors Children had the Brotherhood of the Pheonix, the Lord Commanders and perfection angle. The Thousand Sons don't really need to have much more said for how different they were, same with the Wolves/Vlka Fenryka and the Alpha Legions. But the Blood Angels just seemed so.....Ultramarine tbh, sure they had the Sanguinary Guard, but they were literally just really nice looking bodyguard and ultimately weren't very interesting at all, but generally they just seemed very very generic and didn't really stand out at all.


The Sanguinary Guard, the uniqueness of the Captains, and the Black Rage and Red Thirst hiding under the skin all add to the Blood Angels character as a Legiion. They have their nobility and strength, but the darker core hiding it. They look a bit like the Ultramarines to the observer, but to the insider they hide their dark secret that in the end is what truly defines them. Their differences are hidden because they are so awful.


LotN


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

LotN,

Forgive me for speaking for Angel of Blood, but the problem is that you're just *telling* us these things rather than *showing* us. If that sounds like a trick statement, it kind of is... since the burden lay on Mr. Swallow to *show* the readers how these characters were deep and memorable.

In the case of "Fear to Tread", the author seems to have decided that his characters would be defined by the titles given to them and the situations they were thrust in. What other depth is provided? Those traits you provided for Raldoron... they don't set him apart from the majority of the named Blood Angels characters of Sergeant rank or lower, who also performed with steadfast loyalty, trustworthiness, and humility. What do we know about Raldoron besides his rank, or his planet of birth? Very, very little. Now go back to "Flight of the Eisenstein", and compare that treatment with Swallow's work on Nathaniel Garro.

It's literally like night and day.


----------



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

Finished it yesterday.



Lord of the Night said:


> I suppose this book has received a typical James Swallow reception then. You either love it (Me, Bane of Kings, Shadowhawk2008) or you hate it (Monty, CotE and Angel of Blood).


Don't get me wrong, I don't "hate" it. But it stands far from the peak of the Heresy series in my opinion. I actually quite enjoyed it up to a point; apart from a few snags the build-up to Signus was good - the war on Melchior, Horus's discovery of the flaw, and Horus's use of their shared experience of the Nephilim to lure Sanguinius to Signus. Even the veil that blocked out the stars and the planet-turned-signal was suitably chilling and foreboding. But after that, I considered everything a bit slapstick and poorly portrayed. There was no climactic peak, nothing that made me sit down and say "wow" after closing the book. Instead, I just felt cheated that such a pivotal event in the Heresy wasn't handled in the right manner.

There was no driving character around which the plot was based, there was no Loken, Ahriman, or Argel Tal. Instead, there was the lackluster trio of Raldoron, Kano and Meros. All of whom were unengaging and well, dull. 

Also, am I the only one who really disliked the interaction between Ka'Bandha and Kyriss? That, and the description of the Cathedral of the Mark - which was meant to be the epicentre of the madness - just felt lacklustre.



Lord of the Night said:


> I'll go by each character.
> 
> First off Kano. He is the one that baffles me the most as to why people dislike him. Kano was brilliant and his personal story of an Ex-Librarian is one that i've always wondered about. I too felt it was monstrously unfair to the Librarians to be shoved back into the ranks, to lose their precious wargear and to be treated with suspicion for the actions of Magnus the Red. Kano's dislike of his station, his anger towards Annellus for basically being the equivalent of his Legion outrightly telling him they do not trust him and expect him to betray them like Magnus did. And his desire to break through those Edicts and use his powers to save his Primarch were a great conundrum for him, break Nikea and his oaths or watch his Primarch die. I really enjoyed Kano's choices as they were the choices I would have made and because he was sympathetic.
> 
> ...


You seem to be basing your appreciation of those characters directly on the plot, rather than their development as characters. Whilst both obviously go hand-in-hand, there is a significant difference. For example, I could write:


> Captain Jan was amazing; he was the dutiful, humble and had won countless battle honours. During the Heresy he killed hundreds of traitor Space Marines and high-fived the Emperor.


But those deeds don't make him an interesting or compelling character. You are telling us why you think the characters are interesting, but Swallow failed to show us. After reading the novel, tell me how Raldoron stands out as a character when compared to any other Blood Angel? He doesn't.

EDIT: _Phoebus_ beat me to it on that last part.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I forgive you Phobeus  You and CotE took the words right out of my mouth though, I'm of the exact same opinion and thoughts. 

I found the interactions between Kyriss and Ka'Bandha to be more odd than anything, something about two greater daemons from different gods having a long chat in a room just didn't seem right.

Also, and this isn't entirely Swallows fault, but none of the descriptions of Sanguinius lived up to Abnetts or more so ADBs, sure his descriptions were good and descriptive, but they just lacked the impact and awe that Abnetts had in Horus Rising. This is more ADBs fault than Swallows(yeah I'm looking at you dead.blue.clown if you see this!), but the one short description of Sanguinius during the Seige of Terra in Aurullian was beyond incredible and I'm not sure any other author will live up to it.


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> In the case of "Fear to Tread", the author seems to have decided that his characters would be defined by the titles given to them and the situations they were thrust in. What other depth is provided? Those traits you provided for Raldoron... they don't set him apart from the majority of the named Blood Angels characters of Sergeant rank or lower, who also performed with steadfast loyalty, trustworthiness, and humility. What do we know about Raldoron besides his rank, or his planet of birth? Very, very little. Now go back to "Flight of the Eisenstein", and compare that treatment with Swallow's work on Nathaniel Garro.
> 
> It's literally like night and day.


Hm, well i've never been good at making my thoughts clear really. But I just enjoyed the characters, I enjoyed the situations they found themselves in and I enjoyed how those characters changed over the novel. How Kano went from being a bitter Ex-Librarian to be willing to break the rules to do what's right, how Meros went from being unsure of everything to becoming a real hero, and how Sanguinius accepted that the Red Thirst was not something he could hide anymore. And personally while I enjoyed FotE it doesn't make my Top 5 HH novels, or even my Top 10. To me Garro was cool but because of what he was, not who he is.

And I loved the scene where they decide not to tell Sanguinius what happened to Redknife and his wolves, because it would just be too cruel to do so. And it wouldn't end well for anybody.

And I thought that Ka'Bandha and Kyriss were brilliant together. Daemons aren't always killing each other, sometimes they've gotta put their differences aside and work together. If Slaanesh and Khorne could do it for the Heresy then surely their chosen representatives can. Plus the moment where Kreed thinks to himself that the Daemons are very human in their bickering is very interesting and imo accurate, they aren't that dissimilar to us. No species is above pettiness.

Truthfully I like Swallow's work, and _Fear to Tread_ imo is the best HH novel yet. Better than KNF and TFH, and all know how I feel about ADB's work so from me that is a big compliment. But no book is universally loved, I myself found _Legion_ to be adequate and nothing more whereas i've seen many on this forum praise it as the best thing before TFH was released. I also think that _Gaunt's Ghosts_ is overrated beyond belief and I like both the first two Blood Angels novels and *Nocturne*.

Different opinions are what make this place fun. :wink:


LotN


----------



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

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> There was no driving character around which the plot was based, there was no Loken, Ahriman, or Argel Tal. Instead, there was the lackluster trio of Raldoron, Kano and Meros. All of whom were unengaging and well, dull.


There doesn't need to be. A novel can work as well with multiple protagonists rather than just one that drives the story along. Three pov's can sometimes work better than one central one.



Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> But those deeds don't make him an interesting or compelling character. You are telling us why you think the characters are interesting, but Swallow failed to show us. After reading the novel, tell me how Raldoron stands out as a character when compared to any other Blood Angel? He doesn't.


Well let's compare him to the others. Raldoron is not bloodthirsty like Amit. He isn't paranoid like Azkaellon. He isn't unsure like Meros. He isn't bitter like Kano. Raldoron is the straight-man, the uncomplicated man who does his duty and does it well. Whereas the others are beset by their own internal problems, Amit's hunger for battle makes him unreliable in certain situations, Meros's lack of confidence makes him lesser than he could be, Azkaellon's rampant mistrust makes him tough to trust himself, Kano's bitterness makes him likely to lash out. Raldoron has no complications that lessen his ability, he is simply dependable and loyal yet has the skills of a First Captain but none of the handicaps that others show. Eidolon was monstrously arrogant, Sevatar was insubordinate, Abaddon was argumentative, Corswain was too tractable. Raldoran reminded me of Loken in some ways.


LotN


----------



## Lupe (Jan 3, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> I found the interactions between Kyriss and Ka'Bandha to be more odd than anything, something about two greater daemons from different gods having a long chat in a room just didn't seem right.


This. Very much this. This whole concept of greater daemons working together is so mindbogglingly insane that it's not supposed to feel right. It's the kind of thing that you couldn't ever get right if you tried to make it feel natural. So, yeah, odd is good in this case. Chaos should be unfathomable by sane minds, and interactions between its polar opposites should be anything but what you'd expect them to be. 

The fact that there's even any interactions between the two daemons should also give the readers a hint just how important it was for Chaos to turn the Blood Angels over.

On a different note, I agree that character development was done more by descriptions and outright statements than through memorable scenes or lines, but I found it somewhat refreshing.

Sure, Raldoron doesn't come off as great as Argel Tal, or Sevatar, or Corswain, or Azek Ahriman, or Aenid Thiel, or... Anyway, back to my point. I like the fact that characters get sketchy development time, and that they feel more like rank and file marines. 

An individual's capacity for heroism is not just measured by the opportunity to be in the right place for a really awesome character development scene. Not everybody gets to utter "Forgive me" before plunging the galaxy into civil war. Not everybody gets to ram a chainsword up a primarchs' spine. Not everybody gets to be the first to utter the words that still rally the forces of Chaos ten thousand years after he dies. Raldoron isn't that guy, he's far more understated as a character, even though his well deserved reputation is still enough to ensure he is counted among the equals of the aforementioned characters. He's more evenly tempered, none of the others' traits are as obvious about him. He's not as prone to the others' greatness, but neither is he as prone to their flaws.

Another thing I feel like mentioning is that he's actually closer to a Space Marines Battles character than his Heresy counterparts. In a broader sense, that's a good thing. There's an obvious difference of style between the two series, and having all Heresy-era characters portrayed as larger than life figures just dampens the heroes of the 41st millenium somewhat and leads to saturation of the Heresy series. Every now and then you need a book that focuses more on revealing new events rather than on adding yet new characters whose needs for development will only cause more trouble reconciling as the story drives closer to the siege of Terra.

Anyway, I wouldn't go as far as LotN as to say it's the best Heresy book (mostly because I can probably recite half of The First Heretic by memory alone now), but it was a very enjoyable read nonetheless. I really didn't have any problems with the characterizations being kept light (even though I'm a sucker for depth and grayshading), nor did the pacing seem off.

Amit rocks, though. I could well see him in an audiobook of his own...


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

It doesn't even have to do with "development scenes". It's whether that character feels like a living, complex individual. That can be achieved via background information, mannerisms, their specific look, etc.

Those three "main" characters *don't* come off as "starring characters".

Let me put it this way. Imagine you're reading "The Three Musketeers". Can you imagine what kind of a book it would have been if D'Artagnan didn't have his ferocious Gascon pride, if Athos didn't combine his aristocratic airs with a veneer of mystery and tragedy (via his depression and alcoholism), if Porthos hadn't been a boisterous braggart who practically extorted married women for the finer things in life, or if Aramis hadn't been a pious would-be priest crippled by his love for women? Can you imagine that same book with four blank slates unburdened by any detail or depth other than their staunch loyalty and martial prowess? How boring that would have been!

And please, nobody tell me that Astartes characters can't - or shouldn't - be complex, deep characters. I will literally pray for the psychic manifestations of Abnett, Dembski-Bowden, etc., to beat you profusely with copies of novels that put the lie to that idea! :biggrin:

Cheers,
P.


----------



## Lupe (Jan 3, 2011)

Phoebus said:


> And please, nobody tell me that Astartes characters can't - or shouldn't - be complex, deep characters. I will literally pray for the psychic manifestations of Abnett, Dembski-Bowden, etc., to beat you profusely with copies of novels that put the lie to that idea! :biggrin:


I agree with you on that one. I'm not saying we should get flat characters, or anything. It's just that I'm willing to overlook the lack of depth and complexity if I can see other redeeming qualities somewhere in there (in this case, the destruction of Signus, the fight with Kha'banda, the utter horror of a daemon world, the Ultramarines connection, and that little thing with Erebus at the end). I'm even willing to accept that the occasional bland character in a good book is a refreshing change (although I'd have appreciated if the cast actually mentioned this casually every now and then). I did find Azkaellon and the Chaplains as being downright dislikable in their flatness (which I think was somewhat intended) but Raldoron really didn't strike me as that bad. See, I happened to like Loken in the first two books. I really did, but Galaxy in Flames somehow just rubbed me the wrong way - and even to this day I can't quite place my finger on it. So, I'm okay with a character not being as fleshed out if he plays his part right - I'll just use him as a reference point and move on. 

So, anyway, I guess what I'm saying - and I can't believe I've typed these words - is that poor characters didn't really make this book a disaster, they just didn't boost it to what could have been. I guess that's just a case of the author not really making up his mind on who the star of the show was going to be and splitting his efforts, but then again, Abnett managed to fare a lot better with significantly more characters in Know No Fear...


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I agree with your last paragraph. 

Beyond that:



> It's just that I'm willing to overlook the lack of depth and complexity if I can see other redeeming qualities somewhere in there ...


I can't! :biggrin:

No, seriously. I just don't think the things you mentioned and strong characters are (or should be) mutually exclusive. If I didn't believe in James Swallow as an author, I wouldn't have been disappointed*.

Cheers,
P.

* Which, again, is not to say that I didn't enjoy this book overall.


----------



## Lupe (Jan 3, 2011)

They shouldn't be mutually exclusive, and I agree wholeheartedly. But, just because one checkbox isn't ticked off doesn't automatically move it to the rubbish bin...

But I do see where you're coming from now. See, I only hold James Swallow in a mere opinion of mild sympathy. That makes it easier for me to see this book as an improvement over his previous works, especially since FotE has been loosing ground to some of the more recent books in my standings.


----------



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

Phoebus said:


> And please, nobody tell me that Astartes characters can't - or shouldn't - be complex, deep characters. I will literally pray for the psychic manifestations of Abnett, Dembski-Bowden, etc., to beat you profusely with copies of novels that put the lie to that idea! :biggrin:
> 
> Cheers,
> P.


Who the hell does claim that?! Talos Valcoran, Uzas, Grimaldus, Hyperion, Zachariah Kersh, Vaer Greyloc, Telach, Naim Morvox, Zek Tsu'gan and Alaric. Those are the names that put that theory to absolute lie.


LotN


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> I just felt cheated that such a pivotal event in the Heresy wasn't handled in the right manner.


Basically, this sums up everything anyone needs to know about this book. The book's idea is a pair of size 15 army boots, but it was given to an author who wears size 4 dancing plimsoles.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Alaric? As in Ben Counters? Urgh.


----------



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

Baltar said:


> Basically, this sums up everything anyone needs to know about this book. The book's idea is a pair of size 15 army boots, but it was given to an author who wears size 4 dancing plimsoles.


No. No. No. No it doesn't. It sums up an *OPINION* about the book. No different to the validity of my opinion that the book is great. It is an opinion and therefore belongs to the person who said it and others who agree with them, but others will disagree. There is *NO* concrete answer as to whether or not this is a bad book no matter how much you want there to be one Baltar.

No book is universally loved or hated. _The First Heretic_ is loved by many including me, but i've seen opinions that say its crap and that Anthony Reynold's Word Bearers are far superior. And opinions that are the reverse of that. _Fear to Tread_ is the same, its received a mixed response ranging from those who love it like me, those who are mixed about it like Phoebus or those who outright dislike it like you Baltar.


LotN


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I hated Anthony Reynolds.

It's raining elysians.

As for Phoebus, LotN, he said he enjoyed the book, but that the characters felt, missing.

I enjoyed the book and the characters (Kano is annoying though). Raldoron, Meros, and the Angel were good characters, Kreed was well written (although I'm getting sick of seeing poorly thought out names, it smacks of Nick Kyme's Salamanders, it wouldn't have changed the story at all, but by changing Kreed to some other name would have made me not want to punt the book out of the window every time I saw it)...

I might have missed it as well; but In I think A Thousand Sons, when Ahriman goes to Nikaea, and sees Raldoron, he sees IIRC, a vision of a spider or something (been a time since I've read it). At the time, I thought that was an allusion to Raldoron being a traitor and becoming the Red Angel, but is there anything to actually add to that vision of Ahriman, or have I remembered incorrectly? Is it a plot point to be developed, or has it been forgotten?


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Lord of the Night said:


> No. No. No. No it doesn't. It sums up an *OPINION* about the book. No different to the validity of my opinion that the book is great. It is an opinion and therefore belongs to the person who said it and others who agree with them, but others will disagree. There is *NO* concrete answer as to whether or not this is a bad book no matter how much you want there to be one Baltar.
> 
> No book is universally loved or hated. _The First Heretic_ is loved by many including me, but i've seen opinions that say its crap and that Anthony Reynold's Word Bearers are far superior. And opinions that are the reverse of that. _Fear to Tread_ is the same, its received a mixed response ranging from those who love it like me, those who are mixed about it like Phoebus or those who outright dislike it like you Baltar.
> 
> ...



That's not actually true. I won't claim my opinion is correct - but here's a fact many people don't know: Opinions are correct or incorrect. They are not subjective, even if people would believe they were (these days).

If I tell you it's my opinion that an orange is green, I'd be wrong. No two ways about it - I'd be wrong. If I told you the Nazi party were, in my opinion, fascists, I'd be totally correct.

Whether or not a book is 'good' book depends upon what your basis is for the word 'good'. According to one basis, my opinion could be correct. Occording to another, it isn't. It depends what criteria you use to determine whether or not a book is good. For me, my enjoyment of it (like with film or music) does not enter into it. I've enjoyed some pretty piss poor films in my life, but I acknowledged that they were not good film. 'good' and 'I like it' are two different things entirely. Since I'm not an expert in literature, I can't claim to know what criteria should be used to judge whether or not a book has any artistic merit. I don't have that particular education. I can however use my own set of criteria - be correct in my opinion according to that - and run the risk of having a pretty inaccurate opinion according to what really does make a book 'good'. Which is something I can live with.


----------



## Dead.Blue.Clown (Nov 27, 2009)

Lord of the Night said:


> No book is universally loved or hated. _The First Heretic_ is loved by many including me, but i've seen opinions that say its crap and that Anthony Reynold's Word Bearers are far superior.
> 
> ...
> 
> _Fear to Tread_ is the same, its received a mixed response ranging from those who love it like me, those who are mixed about it like Phoebus or those who outright dislike it like you Baltar.


Not... exactly. In fairness, _The First Heretic _and _A Thousand Sons_ join _Horus Rising_ as the least-criticised and best-reviewed books in the series. Yeah, they get their detractors (as everything does), but calling them the same as, say, _Fear to Tread_ isn't really a fair comparison. You're unlikely to see a thread deadlocked over those three novels, for whatever reason, the way you're seeing it happen here.

None of this has anything to do with my perception of FtT, by the way. It's just not as objective and clear cut as you were saying, LotN.


----------



## Lupe (Jan 3, 2011)

Vaz said:


> Alaric? As in Ben Counters? Urgh.


To be fair to the guy, this quote by Alaric redeems everything Ben Counter has ever messed up



> We do not know what our chances of survival are, so we fight as if they were zero. We do not know what we are facing, so we fight as if it was the dark gods themselves. No one will remember us now and we may never be buried beneath Titan, so we will build our own memorial here. The Chapter might lose us and the Imperium might never know we existed, but the Enemy - the Enemy will know. The Enemy will remember. We will hurt it so badly that it will never forget us until the stars burn out and the Emperor vanquishes it at the end of time. When Chaos is dying, its last thought will be of us. That is our memorial -carved into the heart of Chaos. We cannot lose, Grey Knights. We have already won.


----------



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

Dead.Blue.Clown said:


> Not... exactly. In fairness, _The First Heretic _and _A Thousand Sons_ join _Horus Rising_ as the least-criticised and best-reviewed books in the series. Yeah, they get their detractors (as everything does), but calling them the same as, say, _Fear to Tread_ isn't really a fair comparison. You're unlikely to see a thread deadlocked over those three novels, for whatever reason, the way you're seeing it happen here.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with my perception of FtT, by the way. It's just not as objective and clear cut as you were saying, LotN.


Didn't mean it like that. Meant it more that no book, no matter how loved, is 100% adored and with no criticisms at all. Was just using them as HH comparisons since they are indeed the most loved, there are those who don't love them. I wasn't comparing TFH and ATS to FtT in those regards.



Lupe said:


> To be fair to the guy, this quote by Alaric redeems everything Ben Counter has ever messed up.
> 
> "We do not know what our chances of survival are, so we fight as if they were zero. We do not know what we are facing, so we fight as if it was the dark gods themselves. No one will remember us now and we may never be buried beneath Titan, so we will build our own memorial here. The Chapter might lose us and the Imperium might never know we existed, but the Enemy - the Enemy will know. The Enemy will remember. We will hurt it so badly that it will never forget us until the stars burn out and the Emperor vanquishes it at the end of time. When Chaos is dying, its last thought will be of us. That is our memorial -carved into the heart of Chaos. We cannot lose, Grey Knights. We have already won."


One of 40k's absolute finest quotes. Don't forget,



> _"I am the hammer,
> I am the sword in His hand,
> I am the point of His spear,
> I am the gauntlet about His fist,
> ...


Tancred will always be remembered for that quote alone. :biggrin:


LotN


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Vaz said:


> I might have missed it as well; but In I think A Thousand Sons, when Ahriman goes to Nikaea, and sees Raldoron, he sees IIRC, a vision of a spider or something (been a time since I've read it). At the time, I thought that was an allusion to Raldoron being a traitor and becoming the Red Angel, but is there anything to actually add to that vision of Ahriman, or have I remembered incorrectly? Is it a plot point to be developed, or has it been forgotten?



That was directed at Captain Thoros who was with Raldoron, and was foreseeing his death on Murder, in Horus Rising, they find an eye lens from a helmet and Raldoron reads out the serial number on it which Sanguinius recognises as Thoros.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Thanks, AoB .


----------



## nate187 (Feb 2, 2009)

Lord Mephiston said:


> I'm willing to bet now that Flesh Tearers ( in 40k ) Death Company would whoop the ass of Space Wolf 13th company, Wulfen included, any day of the week :biggrin:






You should of added IMO, Last time I checked they were 3 times red knives squad number. Minus Wulfen. Big call mate ;0)


----------

