# Why I love/hate Know No Fear



## Duke_Leto (Dec 11, 2010)

Not sure if the forum police will allow another thread on KNF but... 

P.S. I am not using spoiler tags (can't find them :scratchhead. You have been warned.

So...

*Why I love KNF (in no particular order):*
1. It is exactly the right length for the story. Some of the recent HH offerings have felt a little bloated and padded to me (TOD and DL).
2. It is pacey and never drags. It builds nicely and then continues at a sprint that perfectly reflects the nature of the story.
3. It is a great ensemble piece (I have seen people complain that you don't get to spend enough time with some characters [insert your personal favourite] or that the change of character perspective happens too often and is jarring) - I simply do not agree (see next point for why)
4. The book/story is structured like one of those 1970s disaster movies (think Towering Inferno, Earthquake, Poseidon Adventure)
= a large ensemble cast that you only get limited time to build the characters (particularly in Act 1) but required to show the scale of the human tragedy (ie full range of people from different strata of society each with their own tragedy or heroics)
= Three act structure (Act 1 build up to the disaster, introduce characters and storylines, Act 2 Disaster, show the epic scale and revel in the special effects, kill off some characters (ideally some unexpected) to create empathy with their plight, Act 3 The survivors find their way out/get saved/fight back)
5. The Third Person Omniscient Present Tense approach perfectly lends itself to the immediacy of the story, the pacing and the level of the threat that is unfolding
6. The generous scattering of easter eggs and story threads for others to pick up and run with (I hope)
7. In the epilogue we get our first glimpse of something that happened during The Scouring (I really hope we get to see more, even though I know they have already said this will not be part of the HH series).

*Why I hate KNF:*
Er there is nothing I hate about it. I think this is one of the best HH novels so far. Absolutely superb and perfectly composed for the nature of the story that was being told.

What do others think?


----------



## Unknown Primarch (Feb 25, 2008)

didnt think it was that great really. besides the addition of oll pious it could have been any spacemarine novel and i didnt really rate the depiction of guilleman. i just feel he seemed like any other chapter master weve come across. as with abnetts russ it seems hes not able to put in all thats needed to portray such a character as a primarch.
and with this id prefer other candidates to come to the fore when deciding who the fans might want to write the final battle between horus and the emperor.

besides the obvious id like to see steve parker for what he did with rynns world and from what im reading with path of the renegade andy chambers should be mentioned on that list. but in the end i think it will be graham mcniell for what hes done with a thousand sons.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Abnett can't portray a Primarch? You kidding me? Horus from _Horus Rising_ is beyond exceptional, fans from all over 40k suddenly really, really liked Horus(like me), he managed to turn the monster into a tragically likeable and excellent character. Sanguinius was also portrayed very well. I enjoyed Guilliman as well, I felt he humanised him well enough whilst still keeping him as the distant and calculating Primarch, apart from the one time where he loses it. Alpharius and Omegon were also excellent, so much so that they just seemed terrible and horribly clichéd when they appeared in _Deliverance Lost_.

End of the day it's you opinion of course, but for what it's worth I(and I imagine a great deal of people will agree) disagree and think Abnett is very capable of portraying a Primarch.


----------



## Unknown Primarch (Feb 25, 2008)

like i said the way he was portrayed was no different to any other chapter master weve read in other novels. to be honest i expected him to be alot more hardfaced and practical, with his commanders very regimented and to the point. i think this would have helped convey the point when he does finally snap, instead he just felt like any other marine and not the great being he is supposed to be.

horus he did ok but that was easier because he just had to be a likeable guy and have that silver tongue with people but still have that power over people when needed. this sort of highlights either how well he did write horus or how he didnt do such a great job with guilleman. me personally i dont think he did a great job with guilleman or russ but i enjoyed horus rising muchly.

the twins worked well i think because it was such a twist but with how the whole legion operates its easier to blend the primarchs with their marines and to be honest it works better if they are written that way. maybe thats why russ and guilleman have been written like that due to still be locked into that same thought process but thats just my own speculation thats all.


----------



## gridge (Feb 11, 2012)

Angel of Blood said:


> Abnett can't portray a Primarch? You kidding me? Horus from _Horus Rising_ is beyond exceptional, fans from all over 40k suddenly really, really liked Horus(like me), he managed to turn the monster into a tragically likeable and excellent character. Sanguinius was also portrayed very well. I enjoyed Guilliman as well, I felt he humanised him well enough whilst still keeping him as the distant and calculating Primarch, apart from the one time where he loses it. Alpharius and Omegon were also excellent, so much so that they just seemed terrible and horribly clichéd when they appeared in _Deliverance Lost_.
> 
> End of the day it's you opinion of course, but for what it's worth I(and I imagine a great deal of people will agree) disagree and think Abnett is very capable of portraying a Primarch.


I completely agree. Abnett has done a fantastic job in my book of developing the primarchs. For the most part they are exactly how I would image them to be. If Guilliman would have been a humorless, inflexible dictator with all the personality of a brick wall I would have been disappointed.


----------



## Unknown Primarch (Feb 25, 2008)

the problem i have with him not being that humourless, inflexible dictator is thats the whole reason why the emperor maybe didnt choose him as the warmaster. guilleman would have been the most capable to direct the crusade but for his personality.
but know with that being put to question it sort of doesnt make sense not to have made him warmaster. surely the emperor would have known exactly what he was like and from KNF he didnt seem that unapproachable so it kinda spoils the whole reason why he wasnt made warmaster. from KNF and what he was able to do after HH he seems the ideal candidate for warmaster. maybe more will come out to evolve things to explain this but at the minute its either abnett not portraying him correctly or another schoolboy error by the emperor.


----------



## deathbringer (Feb 19, 2009)

The book was beautiful, abnetts wording made me hard at some points, it was that good. The who novel was so beautifully styled and it reflected on the analytical brilliance of the ultramarines, their precision, their dedication.

The very thing that you disliked I loved, that it showed a side beyond the pure analytical unforgiving gulliman. It showed a gulliman capable of rage, of humour, not some wooden carbard cut out.

That is what abnett does so beautifully, bringing a vivid humanity to primarchs, beyond their base emotions. 

If we're arguing why gulliman didn't become warmaster, try because horus was the emperor's beloved son, the one in whom he instilled his vision, his drive and passion. He was the one that truly reflected the emperor's desires and the only one to truly understand and appreciated them. I think especially from the first heretic, the emperor sore gulliman more as a weapon, a tool that would cut with perfect precision.

Loved the book, only one i liked more was a thousand sons and thats only because they are my legion.


----------



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

Unknown Primarch said:


> the problem i have with him not being that humourless, inflexible dictator is thats the whole reason why the emperor maybe didnt choose him as the warmaster. guilleman would have been the most capable to direct the crusade but for his personality.
> but know with that being put to question it sort of doesnt make sense not to have made him warmaster. surely the emperor would have known exactly what he was like and from KNF he didnt seem that unapproachable so it kinda spoils the whole reason why he wasnt made warmaster. from KNF and what he was able to do after HH he seems the ideal candidate for warmaster. maybe more will come out to evolve things to explain this but at the minute its either abnett not portraying him correctly or another schoolboy error by the emperor.


Guilliman wasn't not selected as Warmaster because of his personality, thats way off the mark. It's quite simply because Horus was the much more suitable candidate.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Unknown Primarch said:


> didnt think it was that great really. besides the addition of oll pious it could have been any spacemarine novel and i didnt really rate the depiction of guilleman. i just feel he seemed like any other chapter master weve come across. as with abnetts russ it seems hes not able to put in all thats needed to portray such a character as a primarch.
> and with this id prefer other candidates to come to the fore when deciding who the fans might want to write the final battle between horus and the emperor.
> 
> besides the obvious id like to see steve parker for what he did with rynns world and from what im reading with path of the renegade andy chambers should be mentioned on that list. but in the end i think it will be graham mcniell for what hes done with a thousand sons.


I agree. I expected nothing less to whomever wrote the Battle of Calth. But since it was Dan Abnett, I did expect a momentus piece. I didn't see that. I thought the Imperial Guard in this novel were written a lot better than Guilliman and any other space marines. Maybe it was deadline, but I am disappointed that the best author (or at least the person I consider the best author) seemed to do a very limited job of this kick ass battle.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm halfway through and fucking loving it - it's already up there with First Heretic, Prospero Burns and Eisenstein as my favourites of the HH series so far.


----------



## Unknown Primarch (Feb 25, 2008)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Guilliman wasn't not selected as Warmaster because of his personality, thats way off the mark. It's quite simply because Horus was the much more suitable candidate.


i dont see how horus was the more suitable candidate really. guilleman is known to be the best military mind out of the primarchs and seeing what he did with ultramar was definatly the best guy to build a galactic empire as close to what the emperor envisaged. horus wasnt loved by all the primarchs so choosing him seems counterproductive seeing as quite a few primarchs were thinking wtf. id like to see abit more as to why sanguinius wasnt chosen, for me he seems to command respect throughout between the primarchs and to be honest sort of has that awe about him to be the scion of the emperor. oh and considering that even horus thought that sanguinius seemed to embody everything that the emperor was, its a interesting question to be answered abit than with a brief comment that he was 'too etherel' dont you think?!


----------



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

Unknown Primarch said:


> guilleman is known to be the best military mind out of the primarchs


Is he? Where did you come to that conclusion?



Unknown Primarch said:


> horus wasnt loved by all the primarchs so choosing him seems counterproductive seeing as quite a few primarchs were thinking wtf.


The only Primarch that seemed to maintain a frosty relationship with Horus was Corax. Even the _fringe_ Primarchs such as Mortarion, Alpharius and Perturabo were generally only close with Horus, whilst Horus maintained strong relationships with every other Primarch (bar Corax).



Unknown Primarch said:


> id like to see abit more as to why sanguinius wasnt chosen, for me he seems to command respect throughout between the primarchs and to be honest sort of has that awe about him to be the scion of the emperor. oh and considering that even horus thought that sanguinius seemed to embody everything that the emperor was, its a interesting question to be answered abit than with a brief comment that he was 'too etherel' dont you think?!


I think the passing comment in _Know No Fear_ serves it's purpose. Horus gained the title because of his charisma and passion, his good relationships and unanimously positive reputation, his unique bond with the Emperor, and his apparent emodiment of the Emperor's ambition. Also take into account that Horus had taken overall strategic command of the Great Crusade several times before the Ullanor Crusade and his appointment as Warmaster, perhaps suggesting that it had been the Emperor's intention to promote Horus to Warmaster all along.

Guilliman on the other hand had an unparalleled analytical mind, but not the charisma, ambition or reputation that Horus had. He also had the heavy responsibility of maintaining a semi-independent frontier empire. Guilliman's relationships amongst the Primarch brotherhood were also not as positive - Alpharius and Lorgar were certainly not keen on the Lord of Ultramar, and many others thought of him as arrogant and aloof. Would Guilliman have been able to command the loyalty and respect of Angron or Mortarion for example? Unlikely. But Horus did.

Similarly Saguinius did not fit the bill; he was not ambitious enough, not as passionate or as charismatic as Horus. _KNF_ says it perfectly by claiming he was _"too ethereal."_ He was widely respected and appreciated but I don't think that would have transferred perfectly into rulership. Sanguinius (like any other potential Primarch) would have relied too heavily on Horus in order to maintain their own authority as Warmaster. 

Horus was the _only_ logical choice for Warmaster.


----------



## gridge (Feb 11, 2012)

I believe one major strike against Sanguinius, in terms of being appointed Warmaster, was his anger management issues.


----------



## Xisor (Oct 1, 2011)

gridge said:


> I believe one major strike against Sanguinius, in terms of being appointed Warmaster, was his anger management issues.


Where's that belief coming from?


----------



## Tywin Lannister (Nov 17, 2011)

Yes, I'd agree that Guilliman had all the right abilities to be Warmaster, but probably not the charisma and leadership skills to command his brothers' loyalty and obedience.

Sanguinius had charisma in spades, and a brilliant intellect, but was perhaps more the battlefield leader than the guy on the battle barge commanding a crusade.

Horus was probably the right mix of the two, although with hindsight the Emperor might have wanted to think a bit harder about the extent to which he enjoyed his brothers' devotion...

Or, to put it another way, what CotE said...


----------



## Unknown Primarch (Feb 25, 2008)

ill leave it as we have differing opinions then.


----------



## Zinegata (Jan 25, 2012)

KNF is actually the first book I read from the Horus Heresy series, and I have to say that it's still my favorite. It's a book about lonely "What you are in the dark" heroism in the face of annihilation and touches the heart strings at the right moments - to the point that one of the biggest heroes in the novel does not even get to say a single word. 

The contrast between Guilliman and Horus (from the first few books) is actually pretty stark, with the former clearly leading as part of a (cold) military formula, while the latter leading through the sheer force of his own personality. That's why the Luna Wolves essentially fall apart and panic once Horus gets wounded (and they do the monumentally stupid act of turning him over to Erebus), whereas the Ultramarines react to the possibility of losing Guilliman with "There was no chain of command, so I decided I had to build one myself."

And I have to say, I now _get_ the Ultramarines after reading KNF. They're stick-in-the-asses, but that's because everyone around them are either unreliable (i.e. White Scars, Luna Wolves) or verging on the downright psychotic (Space Wolves, World Eaters). And they _have_ to be the adults because no one else will; certainly not the Emperor. And that fact that Guilliman knows he's the mature one (and makes no attempt to hide it) rankles on his brothers.

By contrast, Horus (from Horus Rising) thrives off making the people around him feel good - partly as part of his leadership style, but also because he has this need to be loved and adored. The latter is what causes his many moments of self-doubt, to the point that he even thinks that Sanguinius should have been Warmaster.

Finally, a peeve: I really don't get why the fandom really likes the Loyalist Luna Wolves that much. Sure, Loken and Tarik are great in Horus Rising and he's very human for a Space Marine. But he basically does nothing along with Tarik for the next two novels, despite KNOWING that a purge is going on. They seem to have turned off their common sense in favor of constantly telling themselves that "Astartes shooting Astartes will never happen! We're safe!" (despite plenty of evidence otherwise, as Russ would happily tell you)


----------

