The First Law trilogy - overrated?

[Malthus]

You guys couldn't have had this conversation last week? I just bought the first book and am about 50 pages into it. I hoped it would get better, but now that hope is kind of leaving me. I'll probably finish this book, but doubt I'll buy the other two. Maybe I'll just read the last chapter of the last book at the library to find out what happens.

Spoilers coming...

... in general terms, but a spoiler nonetheless...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Everyone who seems like they're a decent person either:

1. Is betrayed and dies ignomiously, suddenly and for no real reason but to illustrate 2 below:
2. Turns out to be an evil cock or completely broken.

Everyone who seems like they could potentially be redeemed in spite of their flaws are not, instead they are doomed to be miserable, mostly due to circumstances beyond their control.  That is, if they don't die first.

Essentially, the book is about the clash of evil vs evil, with everyone else getting fucked and broken along the way.  The one exception is two characters who are essentially broken, but who after having been broken get to be sort of comfortable in a miserable world.

Sorta like WW2 in Eastern Europe. 

Yeah, the series is certainly lacking in Happy Ever After. Myself, I do not see that as a flaw. The amusing part was how closely the author stuck to the fantasy trope script - only with a cynical eye for inverting everything.

Spoilers:





The handsome young changling who is really a prince is discovered by his magic mentor after a heroic quest, marries the beautiful princess and inherits his father's kingdom - or at least, that's how it appears. The kindly wizard who quested with his companions and defeats the forces of evil at the last minute with a magic Mcguffin - again, that is how it appears. The reader of course know differently.

Either you enjoy the dark inversion of the typical fantasy tale, or you don't; that seems to be what seperates those who liked the series from those who disliked it.

[Berkut]

Either you enjoy the dark inversion of the typical fantasy tale, or you don't; that seems to be what seperates those who liked the series from those who disliked it.

Well, I gave up after reading about half the first book.

I just didn't find it interesting. The characters were flat and boring. The idea of the characters were interesting, but the execution was lacking somehow.

Hearing people who liked the books talk about them makes me *extremely* interested. But the reality doesn't live up to the review.

[Ed Anger]

I liked the torture scenes.

[grumbler]

Either you enjoy the dark inversion of the typical fantasy tale, or you don't; that seems to be what seperates those who liked the series from those who disliked it.

Disagree.  I think what seperates them is that you either like characters and causes that are deliberately set up to be a competition between "the worst and even worser" and think the competition clever because the writing is good, or you don't.  I didn't think the writing was nearly good enough to carry this essential banal concept through a work of this length.

As a shorter story, this might work (maybe dropping everything except the "dark inversion" and making it a single novel).  As a three-book story, though, its weaknesses are far too exposed.

[Malthus]

Either you enjoy the dark inversion of the typical fantasy tale, or you don't; that seems to be what seperates those who liked the series from those who disliked it.

Disagree.  I think what seperates them is that you either like characters and causes that are deliberately set up to be a competition between "the worst and even worser" and think the competition clever because the writing is good, or you don't.  I didn't think the writing was nearly good enough to carry this essential banal concept through a work of this length.

As a shorter story, this might work (maybe dropping everything except the "dark inversion" and making it a single novel).  As a three-book story, though, its weaknesses are far too exposed.

Here we must simply agree to disagree. I thought the writing quite clever, and I did not find the concept banal.

I can more easily see Jacob's critique, which was if I undertood him correctly that he disliked the core concept, than I can that the writing was boring or bad. I thought the author had a real talent, far more than the usual run of fantasy that he's in essence satyrizing.

[ulmont]

I thought the author had a real talent, far more than the usual run of fantasy that he's in essence satyrizing.

Satirizing.  "Satyrizing" implies something totally different. 

[Malthus]

I thought the author had a real talent, far more than the usual run of fantasy that he's in essence satyrizing.

Satirizing.  "Satyrizing" implies something totally different. 

That could work also ... 

[merithyn]

<sarcasm>Sounds great!  </sarcasm>

Then you'll probably like it

Sorry. I added something to clarify.

And for the record, I stopped reading the book at page 86. The Inquisitor was just too awful for me to continue reading anymore. I really don't want to know what's in that man's head.

[grumbler]

Here we must simply agree to disagree. I thought the writing quite clever, and I did not find the concept banal.

We must, indeed.  I thought the writing clever, as I said, but not clever enough to make this reversal of trope interesting through three books.

I can more easily see Jacob's critique, which was if I undertood him correctly that he disliked the core concept, than I can that the writing was boring or bad.

So can I, given that his is my argument as well.

I thought the author had a real talent, far more than the usual run of fantasy that he's in essence satyrizing.

I thought his wordsmithing ability excellent, his ability to plot and develop characters was about average for the genre, I thought.  As I noted, though, this may have been just due to inexperience and a bad editor.

[Malthus]

So can I, given that his is my argument as well.

Your arguments seems quite different to me. You appear to be saying his writing wasn't strong enough to support his core concept. Jacob appears to be saying that he disliked the core concept altogether and no amount of writing would save it.

The difference is that, in your previously expressed opinion, a single book with the same concept might work. I doubt that Jacob would think that a single book with the same ending would be okay, though of course he's free to chime in.

[grumbler]

Your arguments seems quite different to me. You appear to be saying his writing wasn't strong enough to support his core concept. Jacob appears to be saying that he disliked the core concept altogether and no amount of writing would save it.

The difference is that, in your previously expressed opinion, a single book with the same concept might work. I doubt that Jacob would think that a single book with the same ending would be okay, though of course he's free to chime in.

I argue that Abercrombie's writing is good enough to sustain his use of the antihero/reveresed expectations concept through a book, but not over a longer span.  Jake's comment is that "at first I quite liked it, but ultimately it left me quite dissatisfied."  Not sure I see much difference.  As you say, Jake can clarify this if he feels an inclination to do so.

[Jacob]

I think I agree with grumbler.

The writing , in my opinion, was pretty clever - it was enough to sustain me through most of the first book.  But it would've had to be a lot better to sustain the whole trilogy.  If it had been a single book, I would've liked it more, but ultimately it's the concept that's lacking and the problem, for me, is exacerbated by the writing.

In fact, part of the problem is that the writing is clever, so it suggests (falsely, unfortunately) that there's more to the plot than a simple pat story.  I don't read your standard pot-boiler good-vs-evil-everyone-gets-their-just-reward-at-the-end with two dimensional characters fantasy books, so an exact inverse isn't clever to me at all.  The writing and initial parts of the first book suggest that it's more than generic template fantasy; the fact that it's merely a complete inverse of the generic template is not clever, it's disappointing.

The length makes it worse, because it allows the author to introduce secondary characters and he has the skill to begin making them interesting.  But as the potential of each of these characters start to show, they're simply discarded in an off-handed (and sometimes repetitive) manner.  So over the course of the book, you are led to believe that there might be some nuance and complexity, only to be let down again and again.

The core concept is juvenile, in my opinion.  It's like deciding you don't like to go to church with your parents, so you're going to worship the devil and wear upside down crucifixes and attend black masses that are simply the inverse of your parents' church ceremonies.

The problem is that the writing is good enough, and there's enough extra room, that the basic concept is obfuscated (at least it strung me along  ).

Malthus, if you like the basic concept, you should check out: http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Sad-Tale-Brothers-Grossbart-Jesse-Bullington/9780316049344-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527grossbart%2527

The back blurb indicates pretty clever writing, but after reading the opening chapter or two (in which the protagonists murder the neighbouring farmer after slaughtering and burning alive his family in front of him) I decided that it wasn't for me.

[Scipio]

I think that it's deliberately low-concept fantasy.  I still think that it's a long way to go for the payoff on the basic premise of 'What if Gandalf were a dick?', but I think it's far less pat than Jacob implies.  It does a good job of transporting noir tropes into a fantasy setting, but the inherent limitations of hard-boiled fiction/noir is really the issue.  It doesn't mix well with a broad fantasy scope.

Best Served Cold is superior, in my opinion, although it does hit the inevitable revenge wall pretty hard several times.

[Malthus]

Agreed, though I happen to really like noir. If you don't, then clearly you won't like the series.

An excellent recent example of the genre is the continuing Bernie Gunther series by Kerr - last one I read being:

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Flame-Bernie-Gunther-Novels/dp/0143116487/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268421601&sr=8-4

Noir with Nazis. Works well with the damaged, compromised protagonist trope.

[Kleves]

I really liked the books, and I agree with pretty much everything Malthus has said in this thread (including his endorsement of Kerr).

I hate the normal "black vs. white" element in fantasy, so I enjoyed Ambercrombie's "grey vs. grey."

With that said, I did not like the fourth book (really more of a stand-alone set in the same world). While I liked the characters in the First Law trilogy, for the most part, I really hated most of the characters in the fourth book. Every time one of them didn't die horribly, I was disappointed.