Talk:Gregor Eisenhorn

From 1d4chan

On An Alternative Opinion[edit]

Ok maybe I'm not the most funny guy but still I don't see how it's "not helpful" when the article was either written by someone that only read the comments on the novels or was 14 when he last read it.

The entire article is largely both factually wrong and doesn't stress any of the completely ridiculous points of the setting which is what I was trying to do. I mean I'm not even exaggerating the hobo-inquisitor that's so low profile he has to be borrowing money from his his ex-GF to buy food:

"‘We should eat,’ Eleena said. ‘I’d go and get something... but...’ None of us had any money. Crezia pulled off her gloves and produced a wallet from her coat. ‘Am I the only person who thinks practically?’ she commented sourly. Eleena took a credit bar from Crezia and walked down through the trees into the town. She came back fifteen minutes later carrying a styrene box in which were four tall, sweet caffeits in disposable flasks, hot pastries in waxed paper wraps, a loaf stick and some vacuum-sealed sausage meats."

I can't make that shit up.

At that point the guy has like 200+ years of inquisitorial service, with numerous interrogators (some that are even full fledged inquisitors like Ravenor) and could in fact succeed as lord of the Ordo Xenos in the sector if he wanted to. And when his small party left (they actually loot his office thoroughly) but none of them though they might need money? When on the run? This is beyond ridiculous, even without the stupid trope "let's not call the cops".

Even in Xenos he goes after a cabal of heretics that has at least a fleet and hundreds of soldiers, have put an entire sector in disarray, to a meeting an hostile Xenos world. Alone. So of course the soldiers have a change of heart because if not the plot can't progress. (This is what bad writing looks like BTW. And yes Dan Abnett is better than the average BL writer... but he's still one of them).

Eisenhorn really rather use the warp than calling for backup, even from people he should trust 100% (the local Lord of the Ordo Xenos in particular), because ultimately he only trust himself and his own power, which is the thematic of the series. Eisenhorn is from day 1 on his way to radicalism/damnation largely due to his lone wolf character and the way he approaches his office (and is warned against it by Commodus Voke both his senior and a recurring character whose action are truly heroic). The tale is not one of heroism or coolness or badassery, it's one about how Inquisitors themselves become prey to chaos.

The result of this is I have lost track of how many inquisitors get killed (a dozen) because of him insisting they go on foot with a handful of guys into a situation that clearly need more than a vodka martini and where there is utterly no need for subterfuge... and how many times shit get done because someone else than him had the idea to bring Space Marines/Kasrkins/a spaceship with actual guns with them.

Scoring chicks? He score with only one (in the last book) but went full batman "I'm too responsible to have pussy on d/l"... Sean Connery would slap the living shit out of him.

As for "no digi weapons"... suuuure, he gets only saved 3 times by one (ok it's only 1 per book on average but still, cf. my previous comment on Abnett).

Also his actual kill count of "big" heretics is hilariously low while I'm pretty sure he kills personally at least 2 loyal inquisitors in cold blood and as much as half a dozen in self-defense (and a shitload of people just doing their jobs, guards, arbites, frater militants, pdf, mercenaries. But that's par for the course for a murder-hobo/Inquisitor).

Maybe the way I wrote all of this isn't funny enough but I still think it should be worked in the article instead of just deleted...

For starters I absolutely commend you coming to the talk section, and I'll be moving this over to the Eisenhorn Talk Page so it can be a point of discussion. That's an immediate sign of goodwill and makes it clear that this is not meant to troll.
To address your points, my issue ultimately isn't with the information (although I disagree with some of it - even in Xenos we see loyalty inquisitors who are absolutely awful, Puritan and Radical alike, and the argument that getting women, James Bond analogy or not, is a little silly to me), it's with the presentation. Generally putting contrasting points in the same section as the original information, especially in a short article and especially in unbroken paragraph, both looks really bad visually and confuses the reader. In the same vein, the language used (Eisenhorn is a total badass vs Eisenhorn is a fucking dimwit) comes out sounding contradictory to a third party.
If you would like to do the edit, my advice would be to either concisely place pieces of it as counterpoints at the end of relevant sections, with some minor grammatical changes in the original article, or to put them all in a new section. Either way, this both makes it look much neater and makes it easier for the information to be read and changed by other editors. Thanks much. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)