Bell of Lost Souls - Latest Comments in REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Zenick — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:44:16 -0000

I do agree with the review and most of the comments, and I have only read 74 pages of this so far. I probably will not read any more. I looked for reviews specifically in order to find out whether this novel is as horrible as those first few pages make it look, and I gather that it is.

The characters are absolutely one-dimensional cliché Marines of their respective legions. The Space Wolf is brash and vulgar, the World Eater is full of wrath (Counter describes him as having an urge to kill during a fething meeting - how in the nine hells does this guy survive his days?), the Thousand Son is arrogant and spooky, the Ultramarines are all exactly the same kind of noble and heroic. The Word Bearers are the worst. That Zadkiel or Whatshisname has no motivation for his evil plans whatsoever. He is introduced immediately as the evil overlord without any reason for his actions. It is not even mentioned why he wants to destroy the Ultramarines, only that he has this massive desire to do so. What did they do, insult his mother?

The action is going from boring to silly to just plain unbelievable. So the astropaths receive a message, then they go bonkers, and some psionic shockwave almost destroys a whole space port. Right. That psionic shockwave had no good explanation either. So supposedly the effect of a spaceship full of Astartes and crew being destroyed is a psionic shockwave that damages reactors? How does the Imperium of man still stand ten thousand years and a few million of those shockwaves later? It just does not make any kind of sense, especially after Counter describes how astropaths were all basically salivating idiots except for their special ability and would not receive exact messages. Which would be okay if it were not contradicted in each and every other 40K novel.

Ben Counter, I really hope BL will not hire you to write for them again. This was just plain annoying to read.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Ruinous_Amos — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:14:46 -0000

Can't believe some of the comments here. Battle for the Abyss is one of my favourite HH books. The characters were all nuanced and fascinating, the action was relentless and I loved how the entire novel pretty much took place on a starship, during a pursuit, just like a heartstopping chase scene in an action flick.

And that's where I think some of you are reading too far into the novel (mind the pun) and the entire series. It's Warhammer 40K, not Othello. It's about gritty sci-fi scenarios, thrills and heaps of action. Sure, there are themes regarding loyalty, faith and fanaticism woven into there, but Warhammer 40k will not - and should not - stray from its core promise - to deliver a rollicking good ride of a read. I was transfixed by Counter's prose all the way through, and I thoroughly enjoyed the story he had to tell.

I'm honestly baffled by all the negativity here.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

RobK — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:17:34 -0000

I was going to give this thing 2 out of 5 stars....

I really was.

Then...Cestus threw his sword and killed somebody. I have a rule; whether it be movies, books or games. Anytime someone throws a sword, they lose points. Zorro, 2 of the most recent Musketeers movies, Conan the Destroyer. I tell you, it is an absolute indicator of the inability to think of anything original.

Ben Counter, you have failed. Report to the Chamber of Chastisement.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Orkistotle — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:05:25 -0000

I'd give it a 1.5 out of 5. (EE)Mhotep and Skraal were interesting characters. I also like the warp content and ship combat.

I really hate the term "swallow his gorge" and "his gorge rose." Way too much 'gorge' for me by Counter. I've noticed this in a lot of his books.

The other thing is more of a timeline issue. I remember some passage about taking several decades to build the Furious Abyss. Let's assume at least 40 years to build the ship. Add to that planning time for this whole 'blow up the moon' bit not to mention time to corrupt the Word Bearers from the top down then the Mechanicum. They could easily have been corrupted a century or two before Heresy. Yeah, I know that chaos is slow and meticulous infestation, but I really wish an editor would catch this type of stuff.

Does anyone think I'm off base on this?

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Artax — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:57:26 -0000

NO. Just freaking no.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Sir Volkar — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:53:49 -0000

Battle For The Abyss was a total disappointment for me.

Not having read any other Black Library title, I was reticent to check out the Horus Heresy stuff, because I had a preconception of what the writing would be like - poorly produced pulp sci-fi for teens.

I quickly ate my hat after reading Horus Rising and followed this with a feast of 40k delights. These boys could seriously scribe! Spectacular stories, carefully crafted characterization and powerful prose that even had me checking the dictionairy once or twice. This was not what I had anticipated. I even used extracts from Horus Rising in a few of my lessons on creative writing to provide pupils with exemplary modern writing.

Unfortunately, Battle for the Abyss is exactly what I had expected. A predictable story with one-dimensional characters (okay, Skraal was interesting, although more time should have been spent confronting his inner and outer struggle for survival onboard the Abyss). But the thing that really got me was the prose itself. The level of repetition in this novel was dreadful! The Angel of the Emperor did this and the Angel of the Emperor did that. I've had fourteen year-olds produce fiction with a broader range of lexis than that on display here.

After the fantastic work of Abnett with Legion (that ending! :O ), this was a real let down (although not so much as the conclusion to Descent of Angels, which was just asinine!).

I would give this one a 1/5.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Stingray — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:43:21 -0000

I'm glad someone else thought this book was a pile of poo. I had to drag my way through it, and I took a break and read a couple of other books half way through. I only kept going in the hope of a big story arc reveal (a la 'Legion') that never came. The worst in the series so far. Very poor.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

ArmouredWing — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:05:57 -0000

I'd definitely have given it a 3/5 as it was one of the easier reads of the series so far and not the worst by a long chalk.
The worst? Well, Fulgrim is a contender as is Legion (and being a massive abnett fan it grieves me greatly to say that but credit where it's due so to speak).

Generally I'd have to say that the series as a whole has been more of a disapointment than anything else. The authors have continually missed the mark and even the better novels in the series (e.g. Flight of the Eisenstein) haven't been great. In fact there's only one book that would have scored a maximum of 5/5 and that was Horus Rising (Abnett at the top of his game!).

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Imperialsavant — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:43:28 -0000

Agree wholehartedly with bigred! this book was a BIG dissapointment to me & I only managed to read halfway through before I gave up & lent it to one of my gaming mates.
My biggest complaints: Way too much "Hyperbole" in descriptions, Unappealing Characters, the Ultramarine Captain that "barked" his orders, The Space Wolf who acted like a Klingon from Star Trek, the nurotic Word Bearer etc.
The Super Battleship that couldnt even pick up the Marines on their Auspex/Sensors as they approached the Space Dock, the rediculous effort to shut down the Plant at the other Space Station (they were going to Blow it Up to save the Station!) Emperors Teeth! Didnt they know that action would have Blown Everyone UP!
After the great stories & characters from all the Books (except Decent of Angels) this one was a real let down. Hope the next few offerings are more like the first lot.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Drix — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:08:54 -0000

Um, true...but the HOW for most of the previous books were actually interesting. This book just doesn't have the twists and "wow!" moments most of the others have had.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Sarpedon — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:28:45 -0000

@ Lord: idk, the Soul Drinkers Omnibus was quite good. definitely not on par with anythin like Dan or Sandy or Graham, but it was a good series.

No lie though, he has gone down hill.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Sarpedon — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:21:50 -0000

It's definitely been wedged a bit, but I still think it's a great book. Coulda been better, but a keeper in my book.

no pun intended.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

JV0508 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:17:03 -0000

Isnt that what HH is all about? reading about something you already know is inevidably going to happen. I mean i realy like the books but i dont know if id like them have as much without the context of the stories already beeing established. espacially in the first 2 books. you KNOW horus is going to turn you just want to know HOW and at which point

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Forhekset — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:19:16 -0000

Well the story of Caliban was awesome in and of itself. If only their planets transition into the Imperium and Space Marines was as lovingly detailed.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Drix — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:12:06 -0000

My biggest issue with the book is that it was, quite simply, predictable. I knew within the first fourth what the end result was going to be, for the most part. I mean, it does explain a side part of the HH and how the Ultras were saved and went on to become the largest Legion in terms of manpower after the Heresy, which I guess I wanted to know...? I just would like to know how much of these stories are the authors own and how much is controlled by GW/Black Lib. It was kinda neat to see more loyalist marines from the Legions that did turn to Chaos.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Lord — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:56:36 -0000

Personally, I liked

Horus Rising: 7
False Gods: 5
Galaxy in flames: 4
Flight of the Eisenstein: 5
Fulgrim: 8
Descent of Angels: have not read
Legion: 4
Battle for the Abyss: 2

My main comment is that the first 2 books, and Fulgrim all show primarchs in a good way. In my mind they are the most intersting thing. I personally Loved fulgrim, especially the ending, but the info about the music, lucius, and the apothocary are all good to.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Angelic Despot — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:07:28 -0000

Here's my scoring for them (all that I've read so far) out of 10:
Horus Rising: 8
False Gods: 5
Galaxy in flames: 3
Flight of the Eisenstein: 2
Fulgrim: 4
Descent of Angels: 6
I'm on Legion now.
The first book had an interesting story and atmosphere, avoided concentrating too much on the very hard-to-describe primarchs, had mostly interesting characters and plot themes.
Horus Rising kept the decent characters, but added some huge plot holes (like Horus falling into such an obvious set-up, Erebus being so damn-obvious, Horus choosing chaos for no particular reason, and Lokken having some really damning evidence against the Word Bearers and not bothering to do anything with it).
Galaxy in Flames had no story line at all (they fight - end of story), no characterisation, nothing interesting happening. The loyalists hold out because they're brave. Not because they do anything intelligent, or have cunning plans, or because the plot twists and turns, but because they're 'good'.
Flight of the Eisenstein didn't even have the benefit of using existing characters much. You could replace the name 'Garro' with 'Lokken' and not know the difference, except that Lokken was better written. The others had no character at all. The marine with the plasma gun, the marine with the power fist - that was all that distinguished them. Rorgal Dorn couldn't control his temper when told something he didn't like, so like a 6 year old child decided to hit Garro. But he can't have been that annoyed, because he only broke his jaw. (However, I did like the passage describing the very lonely, forlorn abandoned-ness that was the Eistenstien after they've blown the warp engines and are huddling around the only working (and warm) bit of the ship left. That bit was very nice.)
Fulgrim at least had a bit more of a story to it, and some actual characters, even iif there didn't seem to be any reason for any of them falling for chaos. And if I perfectly hear again how perfectly the perfect Emperors perfect Children fight in a perfect battle because they love perfection, I'll kill myself.
Descent of Angels was much better written. It explored the flawed nature of Lion El Johnson and his relationship with the chapter through 'lesser' characters that we could relate to. It was massively let down by the ending though, which went nowhere and told us nothing.
I'm about a third of the way through Legion now, and quite enjoying it. It has characters, interesting settings, plot... It seems a bit peripheral to the Heresy so far, but the Alpha Legion are a pretty peripheral legion, so I've no objection there. Not everyone can be fighting at the deciding battle.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

UltramarineFan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:58:58 -0000

I may be wrong but I swear i read about a rememberencer looking out through a porthole in one of the first three books

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

UltramarineFan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:54:34 -0000

fave-Flight of the Eseinstein- Particularly the Swallow shows how the loyal primarchs(rogal dorn in this book) deny any possibility of Horus being a traitor whereas they simply accepted it in previous fluff
least fave-don't have one YET ( only just finished Fulgrim!!!!!)

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Lord — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:15:25 -0000

Can I just ask? what was your favorite Heresy Book so far? also, what was your least favorite? this applies to everyone.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

coydna — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:34:15 -0000

I thought the book was a major disappointment. While I understand every book isn't going to fit in with the heresy itself (descent started exploring how the rift in the dark angels grew, legion explained the workings of the alpha legion and how their chapter got pulled in), this simply appeared out of nowhere. The other books all had some grounding as to their situation/characters/timeline, but this seemed to just pop up. Before this book, no mention was made of the word bearers mighty ship or any other plans of the like beyond 'go get calth!' On top of this, Counter's characters are horribly flawed. While cookie-cutter in nature, I found them interesting to see their stereotypes developed. But then dialogue ruined this. This is perfectly illustrated when Mhotep (who up till this point is in classic "I banish thee to the abyss foul beast yadda yadda) turns to a daemon and says "Feeding time's over." It felt like a badly scripted action film. Imagine every character as Schwarzenegger and you'll see what I mean.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

wolf breath — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:52:40 -0000

That may be so, though I doubt it, but Admiral Kaminska is certainly not a genetically enhanced super human and it was she who looked through the viewport. Later, when she's consulting with her Navigator, she looks at the warp via a mirror through a heavily filtered view screen. "To look at the warp,even filtered as it was, would be incredibly dangerous for her." Some continuity isn't a lot to ask.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

evernevermore — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:43:27 -0000

What I have to say about this is there a ton of gems that Counter seems to ignore or discard for boring characters. Uriel Ventris has already shown you can have an Ultramarine who is more then one dimensional but all the interesting characters in the book get killed off without being explored.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

St.ben — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:10:23 -0000

Funny thing is, all those first time novel writers in the new Guardsmen series are quite good, while quite a few veteran writers kinda messed up their HH books.

And as a side note, aren't you glad BoLS already did a 30K campain, otherwise we'd be stuck with these snorefest characters.
"Cestus may be a total bore and order any number of space wolf blood claws and world eaters to their death before ordering his own men to attack."
"Zadkiel May act as a total moron and cannot kill anything that might kill him, therefore he has zero attacks and a Gretchin can kill him on a roll of a 3+"
"Mothep can kill any daemon he looks at."
"Skraal is a very confused young man, kills anything with a T3 in CC no matter if they're on his side or not."

You lot make up the rules for Brynngar and the rest, no more fun to be had beating a dead horse.

Re: REVIEW: Battle for the Abyss

Joeb — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:23:06 -0000

I can accept that the Word Bearers are backstabbers. But I can't accept that they are so concerned with personal advancement that they allow a handful of smurfs to screw up a major, major attack. All because they're to busy being evil and cackling maniacally over the corpse of a power-hungry lieutenant.

I thought it was really odd that Skraal was disgusted by what was essentially an autopsy when he's killed thousands himself. That really rang false to me.