For some reason the search function is not working in my browser for this forum. Odd.

At any rate - has anyone read "Scourge the Heretic" the Dark Heresy fiction? I read some lack luster reviews and wanted to see if it was worth my time. I've read Eisenhorn, and a lot of the old, old stuff the GW put out back in the early 90s.

thanks

I've read both Scourge the Heretic and Innocence proves nothing, and while both give more insight to the Calixis Sector, then they arent the best reading, compared to other Inquisitor novels, including the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books. But ok, Dan Abnett is hard to compete with, in the WH40k universe

I bought them cause I had nothing else to read, and wasnt blown away by them in anyway. The characters are ok, with a few good moments and the plots are good, but with very little... umpf!.

They do however make excellent books depicting Dark Heresy roleplaying, because most of what they do are within the grasp of normal acolytes. There is very little fantastic over their actions, they make due with what they have, and that isnt a lot.

Yeah, I don't think it even considers itself literature. I consider it a tool to aid in understanding Dark Heresy as a game.

Sure, but this also the function of the two "Dark Heresy" books. It`s a nice sources for Players and GMs of Dark Heresy, special when they have no or only little knowledge of the setting. On the other side, when you have read a lot of more books from the BL, you can bypass this book, without bad feeling,

I thought they were a good quick read but seriously nothing can compare to Abnett's Inquisitor stuff.

Inquisitor_Deiter said:

*cough* Matt Farrer´s Shira Calpurnia *cough* hundredtimes better *cough*

On topic, Scourge the Heretic and Innocence Proves Nothing definitely aren´t at Top 10 of BL novels/series I read, but they aren´t bad either. I quite enjoy them and altough their mein use would propably be getting deeper insight into Dark Heresy atmosphere, you could like them a lot if you don´t mind slower-paced story with great detail on surroundings.

Oh, and IpN contains one of the greatest one liners in 40k literature ever (quite MASSIVE SPOILERS AT THE END OF THE POST)

"I think we´ve just killed an Inquisitor."

Hmm, I think that Sandy Michell is a better writer then Abnett...

I read Eisenhorn and Ravenor, but I don't lile the way Abnett builds his plots.

All books where kind of boring in the beginn, very good in the mid and at the end he ran out if pages...

Michells style is, IMHO, more steady and the books lead to the end, and don't feel aborted at the end.

AND it's great für Dark Heresy

Actually, the two writers can't be compared to each other since their styles, plot devices and most likely even their intentions whilst writing are completly different from one another.

The Eisenhorn and Ravenor novels are like ... eating lobster in a five-star restaurant. You gotta work through a thick outer crust before it gets all delicious and rewarding.

The DH novels are more like fries-to-go ... everyone easily knows how to stomach them and what they're all about. They're fast food novels so to speak, nothing else to expect there really. But at that they're doing a fine job.

If you're into DH you can give them a try, they're easy to read on the bus maybe or whilst riding the subway to work. Abnett's novels are best reserved for a nice evening at home, a nice decanter of wine sitting on the table beside your armchair.

Malefic Sorcerer said:

Funny, how you just compared the two though.

Anyway I disagree. Abnett ismore like eating lobster in a five-star restaurant. You gotta work through a thick outer crust before it gets all delicious and rewarding but then you find out there is way too little meat on the thing and you finish it all in two bites. I mean Ive read like 8 of his novel and aside from Horus Rising each novel eneds with long winding build up to a climax that is about what? one paragraph long, that just leaves me going "what?" I mean seriously, he is a good writer who hurts himself because the PTB at the Black Library say "Dan, we need you to write a book at about the Inquisition, but you only get 260 pages..... and go!"

Ill take a Commissar Cain novel any day of the week over a Commissar Gaunt novel. And I have really enjoyed the depth of StH and IPN, which never bogged down to as boring as Eisenhorn's train ride through the Alps the took up way too much space in Hereticus. Plus, In the Eisenhorn novels the only really interesting characters were Eisenhorn and Fischig.

So in the end, my comparison is that Abnett's novels (while I enjoy them and they are good) think they are better then they actually are, while Mitchell's novels (which I love) are comletely aware that they are camp-pulp novels written for a fixed audience, and I think Mitchell has more fun with them.

I dunno, PKB...I prefer Abnett's stuff, personally.

I agree, Mitchell has the virtue of knowing his audience, and not taking himself too seriously, but in a grimdark setting like 40k, high camp doesn't really play too well. Knowing winks like naming Inquisitors and acolytes after John Le Carre characters just irritates rather than charms me. Mitchell plays for laughs within the setting, while Abnett generates rip roaring action that expands the setting.

Good sci fi works best when it's taken seriously - even when it's intrinsically daft. Most of the actors on the original Star Wars film thought they were making a load of junk, but because they played it straight it somehow works. Whenever Mitchell has characters eat "savoury pulses in a piquant sauce on charred wheatbread" (ie beans on toast) it breaks the fourth wall for me...

I know I'm coming across as po-faced here, but in-jokes just distract me from enjoying the book. Abnett's stuff isn't humourless, but the humour is within the setting, rather than Mitchell's style of gurning and winking at the reader above the character's heads.

Having said all that, weirdly that sort of thing works really well in WFRP. The original was stacked full of terrible puns, with cities named things like Bordeleaux (bordello) and the like...

Lightbringer said:

The original "Rogue Trader" version of Warhammer 40k was full of the same mix of ridiculous and black comedy (Inquisitor Obi Wan, Orks and humans racing bikes, Zoats eating "Zoatibix" etc). I like Alex's (Sandy Mtchell) books for that reason.

I sort-of know him as one of my players does Aikido with him and I think it's safe to say that he enjoys writing Cain more than the Dark Heresy books but that he was trying to take what he was given and make a "Sandy Mitchell" book out of it: some great one liners, memorable characters, graveyard humour, dodgy names and obtuse descriptions of mundane items (look out for the "Beans on Toast" and “Sausage & Mash” references...).

From a Dark Heresy GM or players perspective though they offer a great insight into life as an Acolyte and the detail of the Calixis sector. While "Eisenhorn" (which I also love) and "ravenor" give the feel of an Ascension campaign I think Scourge The Heretic & Innocence Proves Nothing give the feel of "normal" acolytes. They have to make do with what they have, they get things wrong and they act (in many ways) like a bunch of players running their characters in a game. It all adds up to a great introduction to what "Dark Heresy" and it's setting is about.

Nerd King said:

Yes, you're absolutely right, Nerd King. Mmmmmm....Zoatibix....Perhaps I AM being a bit po faced about this stuff!

Peacekeeper_b said:

Funny, how I didn't.

I likened them to entirely different things, in this case a menu served in a fine restaurant and some fries from some franchise. Just like you can't compare those two, you can neither compare the two novels imo.

Anyways, both types of novels have their respective places and audiences, their pro and cons. And just like the authors are vastly different in their approach, so are we, the readers.