I was looking for some new fiction to read when I ran across here, a month or two ago, a very enthusiastic set of endorsements for the Joe Abercrombie The First Law trilogy, so I picked it up at my local bookstore. I don't recall who all was posting the endorsements 9berkut's stuck in my mind, but there were others).
I am now struggling to finish the third book, and think it may save someone some lifespan if i point out that this certainly isn't a series for everyone.
Abercrombie is a good writer from the language standpoint. His vocab is excellent, and his writing flows smoothly. The only complaint I would have from a technical standpoint is that Abercrombie is sometimes too clever for his own good; he has a line at one point, for instance, about how a clock "vomits forth" some chimes. That would be a great line in the right place. In the wrong place, though, it breaks immersion and lets the reader know the author thinks himself a clever chap - it is too much.
Where I disagree with Berkut and friends is in the overall character of the books. Abercrombie has created some interesting concepts for his protagonists, but cannot actually execute them into flesh-and-blood characters. The torturer tortures people he knows to be innocent, but we never understand why. It isn't because he is a bad person - he also does altruistic things. it isn't because he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong - he notes to himself that what he is doing is wrong. he just does it. The rest of the protagonists are pretty much the same - cardboard cutouts that are really interesting in outline but completely flat in execution. Each has one (and only one) trademark line or act that is endlessly repeated: the torturer grimacing in pain, the viking dude with his "say this about Logen..." etc.
The plot of the trilogy may be excellent, but since it hasn't begun yet (and I am halfway through the third book) it seems this "trilogy" doesn't have a plot. It is more like a series of stories strung together. That is actually another of the weaknesses of the series - all of the alternating chapters, with different characters featured in each, robs all of the stories of their narrative force - just as one of them starts to interest the reader, the story shifts to another character in another location.
Abercrombie deliberately chose not to have any maps in these books, so that the reader would be unable to relate what was happening to one character to what was happening to another. That was a serious blunder, IMO, because Abercrombie doesn't do nearly enough description to tell you what the relationship is between places, nor how "epic" the supposedly long quests are. If Abercombie doesn't care whether or not the home nation of two of his main characters is an island or not, why should the reader care?
The final problem i have with these books is that Abercrombie goes to lengths to ensure that none of the leaders of the three nations involved in the story - inhabited by Vikings, a sort of infantry-oriented Holy Roman Empire, and Arabs, respectively - are the slightest bit admirable. They torture and kill innocents for black magic or simply because it is easier than trying to find out truths. In the war between them, the reader doesn't care who wins. Even if you start to care about a character, that character is like a soldier in the Soviet or German armies of WW2 - you don't want their side to win.
Frankly, if I hadn't bought all three books before I started, I wouldn't finish the series. It is technically excellent but really suffers from not having a story editor who could have sent Abercrombie back to the drawing board until he had a story worth telling - and who would have told him to cut down on the number of characters and side stories he tried to tell.
It is totally appropriate that Abercrombie replaced Jordan on the Wheel of Time series. He is a better writer, but just as directionless and unable to create 3D characters as Jordan was.
Thank you. You just saved me from a purchase I would have regretted.
Grumbler is utterly wrong.
I haven't even read these books, much less endorsed them.
WRONG WRONG WRONG! :P
I am actually about a third of the way into the first book, which I got from the library. So far, it has been kind of "meh". The characters have interesting ideas about them, but they haven't really grabbed me yet, perhaps they never will?
Anyway, it was acually Malthus who recommended these, in the GoT thread.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 11:11:51 AM
Grumbler is utterly wrong.
I haven't even read these books, much less endorsed them.
...
Anyway, it was acually Malthus who recommended these, in the GoT thread.
Really? it was the (false) memory of your endorsement that made me buy the books, since I have found your tastes similar to mine.
Now
that is funny. Luckily I paid only $9 for the three books.
It was indeed I who recommended them. So far, people I've recommended them to have had two reactions - some have loved them and some have said "meh, all these characters are horrible, and I really don't for or about any of them".
The plots do tie together by the end of the last book, and all of the seeming side-issues tie in; there is an overarching plot.
What I liked about the series is that the writing was fun, clever and gritty; he's taken a bunch of fantasy tropes (the barbarian, the wizard and the young warrior on a quest) and done something different with them.
Similar to another series I rather enjoyed, the Bernie Gunther "Berlin Noir" mysteries by Philip Kerr - the protaganists are damaged and compromised people; though Gunther is a good deal more sympathetic than anyone in the First Law.
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
It was indeed I who recommended them. So far, people I've recommended them to have had two reactions - some have loved them and some have said "meh, all these characters are horrible, and I really don't for or about any of them".
I am in the first camp; I thought that series was great.
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
What I liked about the series is that the writing was fun, clever and gritty; he's taken a bunch of fantasy tropes (the barbarian, the wizard and the young warrior on a quest) and done something different with them.
Yes, he has done something different with them: he has made us not care! :lol:
The "young warrior on a quest," of course, doesn't even really know he is on a quest, and he is the only character that actually thinks about what will happen more than a couple of weeks into the future. The torturer character could be interesting, if he actually thought about his own future. As it is, he and the others are mere mechanical parts creaking along to ever-so-slowly advance whatever plot there is.
It is kind of ironic that the only character who actually
does think about his future ("the Dogman") is a bit character.
I don't really blame Abercrombie: he is a first writer, who happens to have fallen into the hands of a crap editor.
I thought it was pretty good, and liked the plot and the characters. Most fantasy is awful, so perhaps it is overrated.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 11:35:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
What I liked about the series is that the writing was fun, clever and gritty; he's taken a bunch of fantasy tropes (the barbarian, the wizard and the young warrior on a quest) and done something different with them.
Yes, he has done something different with them: he has made us not care! :lol:
The "young warrior on a quest," of course, doesn't even really know he is on a quest, and he is the only character that actually thinks about what will happen more than a couple of weeks into the future. The torturer character could be interesting, if he actually thought about his own future. As it is, he and the others are mere mechanical parts creaking along to ever-so-slowly advance whatever plot there is.
It is kind of ironic that the only character who actually does think about his future ("the Dogman") is a bit character.
I don't really blame Abercrombie: he is a first writer, who happens to have fallen into the hands of a crap editor.
I saw the torturer dude as more being driven along by his past than thinking about the future, a sort of willing victim of cirumstances - he does what he does because the alternative - living on the charity of his relations - is, in his mind, worse; but just going along with the flow of what his superiors want just gets him deeper and deeper involved. I didn't find him, or the other characters, mechanical.
But I'll not attempt the hopeless task of convincing someone to like a book they don't. I liked it, but it is obviously not the sort of series everyone is going to like. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that.
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 11:53:57 AM
I saw the torturer dude as more being driven along by his past than thinking about the future, a sort of willing victim of cirumstances - he does what he does because the alternative - living on the charity of his relations - is, in his mind, worse; but just going along with the flow of what his superiors want just gets him deeper and deeper involved. I didn't find him, or the other characters, mechanical.
I understand the
concept of a character who just turns off his humanity as a result of suffering, I just find that character uninteresting as a main character, because his thinking is so alien to our own.
He has a chance to save the peace, save an innocent man's life, and find a true killer before that killer strikes again. His boss tells him to doom his nation to a war it cannot win, horrifically execute and innocent man, and forget about finding the true killer. He agrees. At other times in the book, he demonstrates that he doesn't fear death (and would, in fact, welcome it) but at this juncture he turns into a robot and executes absurdly "evil" and horrifically damaging orders, and in fact takes a friend to the execution!
QuoteBut I'll not attempt the hopeless task of convincing someone to like a book they don't. I liked it, but it is obviously not the sort of series everyone is going to like. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that.
I don't know why convincing someone to like a book they've already read would even be an objective. I certainly am not trying to make you dislike it, and I don't disagree with your reasons for liking it. Cannot we just discuss a work (and a new writer) without having to convince anyone to like or dislike anything?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 09, 2010, 11:38:21 AM
I thought it was pretty good, and liked the plot and the characters. Most fantasy is awful, so perhaps it is overrated.
It is true that I don't read much modern fantasy, just because it
is so crap, so this series may be
relatively brilliant, but...
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 12:04:15 PM
I don't know why convincing someone to like a book they've already read would even be an objective. I certainly am not trying to make you dislike it, and I don't disagree with your reasons for liking it. Cannot we just discuss a work (and a new writer) without having to convince anyone to like or dislike anything?
I, for one, have yet to finish even the first book.
I've decided that whether I continue or not will be based on the two of you and your arguments for whether or not I should like it. Then I will decide whether I like it or not, and either finish reading the series enjoying it immensely, or burn the library copy I have in disgust.
Please continue.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 12:06:54 PM
I, for one, have yet to finish even the first book.
I've decided that whether I continue or not will be based on the two of you and your arguments for whether or not I should like it. Then I will decide whether I like it or not, and either finish reading the series enjoying it immensely, or burn the library copy I have in disgust.
Please continue.
Not sure there is any continue to continue. I had thought the series more widely read and admired than appears to be the case.
Well, at least no one can say that they didn't hear two sides to the story.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 11:53:57 AM
I saw the torturer dude as more being driven along by his past than thinking about the future, a sort of willing victim of cirumstances - he does what he does because the alternative - living on the charity of his relations - is, in his mind, worse; but just going along with the flow of what his superiors want just gets him deeper and deeper involved. I didn't find him, or the other characters, mechanical.
I understand the concept of a character who just turns off his humanity as a result of suffering, I just find that character uninteresting as a main character, because his thinking is so alien to our own.
He has a chance to save the peace, save an innocent man's life, and find a true killer before that killer strikes again. His boss tells him to doom his nation to a war it cannot win, horrifically execute and innocent man, and forget about finding the true killer. He agrees. At other times in the book, he demonstrates that he doesn't fear death (and would, in fact, welcome it) but at this juncture he turns into a robot and executes absurdly "evil" and horrifically damaging orders, and in fact takes a friend to the execution!
There is in fact an explaination for that, but it involves quite comprehensively spoiling the ending of the book. If you don't care, I'll do it.
Quote from: Malthus on March 09, 2010, 12:18:52 PM
There is in fact an explaination for that, but it involves quite comprehensively spoiling the ending of the book. If you don't care, I'll do it.
There is an in-character explanation for why Abercrombie hides his reasons from us? That I will wait to see.
However, that would make all or some of Abercrombie's characters unreliable narrators, which would make things worse, not better.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 12:48:18 PM
However, that would make all or some of Abercrombie's characters unreliable narrators, which would make things worse, not better.
*******GAME OF THRONES SPOILER!!!***********
There was a debate in a GoT thread about who killed Joffrey.
Someone was arguing that it was Tyrion, based on Tyrion telling Jaime that he had done so.
I remember thinking "Wow, if that was the case, I would really hate Martin, since Tyrion is a PoV character, and in fact the PoV character who we watched joff's death from, and he rather clearly did NOT poison him!" If in fact a POV character can do things during their POV that are not relayed to us...how do we believe anything? That would be, IMO, "cheating" by the author.
Just an aside.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 12:48:18 PM
However, that would make all or some of Abercrombie's characters unreliable narrators, which would make things worse, not better.
*******GAME OF THRONES SPOILER!!!***********
There was a debate in a GoT thread about who killed Joffrey.
Someone was arguing that it was Tyrion, based on Tyrion telling Jaime that he had done so.
I remember thinking "Wow, if that was the case, I would really hate Martin, since Tyrion is a PoV character, and in fact the PoV character who we watched joff's death from, and he rather clearly did NOT poison him!" If in fact a POV character can do things during their POV that are not relayed to us...how do we believe anything? That would be, IMO, "cheating" by the author.
Just an aside.
Agree. Having an unreliable narrator is okay, so long as we know (or can quickly guess) that this is true. Having one and hiding it is "cheating."
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2010, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 12:48:18 PM
However, that would make all or some of Abercrombie's characters unreliable narrators, which would make things worse, not better.
*******GAME OF THRONES SPOILER!!!***********
There was a debate in a GoT thread about who killed Joffrey.
Someone was arguing that it was Tyrion, based on Tyrion telling Jaime that he had done so.
I remember thinking "Wow, if that was the case, I would really hate Martin, since Tyrion is a PoV character, and in fact the PoV character who we watched joff's death from, and he rather clearly did NOT poison him!" If in fact a POV character can do things during their POV that are not relayed to us...how do we believe anything? That would be, IMO, "cheating" by the author.
Just an aside.
Not only that but that author goes to some length to explain the motivation for lying to his brother about the killing. It becomes part of the plot. If all of that is used to "surprise" us in the end then it is simply an act of deceit rather then crafty writing since the internal motivations are being communicated directly to the reader not the other characters in book.
I read the trilogy, and at first I quite liked it, but ultimately it left me quite dissatisfied. The ending in particular was a let-down, both in terms of content and pacing. Over the course of the trilogy, Abercrombie deliberately makes sure that any redeeming traits in any of his characters are either rendered irrelevant, or more usually, punished.
As for the plot, it turns on the same hackneyed "clash of cosmic forces with wacky names" conceit that's so common; the one innovation is that he's decided that every character is either ultimately a completely amoral selfish asshole or a victim, or usually some combination of the two.
So yeah... the trilogy left me cold and I'm definitely not buying any more books by Abercrombie.
I also endorsed the books, with the caveat that the characters are generally unlikeable.
The Best Served Cold book( the separate fourth book) suffers from the extreme character dislike. You sorta hope they all just die.
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. :P
Quote from: merithyn on March 09, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
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. :P
I'll save some money on book 2: nothing of import happens.
Kinda like books 5-10 of the WoT books, which is where this started.
Quote from: merithyn on March 09, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
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. :P
The beginning is the best part. The defining feature of the book is that you hope it gets better, and it never delivers on that hope - it just strings you along, then peters out.
Quote from: merithyn on March 09, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
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. :P
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.
Sounds great! :w00t:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 03:14:27 PM
The Best Served Cold book( the separate fourth book) suffers from the extreme character dislike. You sorta hope they all just die.
That sounds great. Didn't know there was a fourth, gonna have to get it
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 10:56:39 AM
It is totally appropriate that Abercrombie replaced Jordan on the Wheel of Time series. He is a better writer, but just as directionless and unable to create 3D characters as Jordan was.
Sanderson, not Abercrombie, replaced Jordan.
And I disagree with some of what you say.
Quote from: merithyn on March 10, 2010, 06:49:46 PM
Sounds great! :w00t:
Then you'll probably like it :)
I completely agree with Grumbler! :o
So, are there any newish fantasy series worth reading out there?! :(
Quote from: Scipio on March 10, 2010, 07:12:07 PM
Sanderson, not Abercrombie, replaced Jordan.
My bad. You can see how closely I follow all of this! :lol:
QuoteAnd I disagree with some of what you say.
No new news is good new news. Your counter-arguments when you disagree with me are disgustingly unshrill and persuasive.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2010, 08:06:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 09, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
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. :P
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:24:01 AM
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.
I liked the torture scenes.
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:24:01 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2010, 09:41:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:24:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:51:45 AM
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. :boff:
Quote from: ulmont on March 11, 2010, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:51:45 AM
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. :boff:
That could work also ... :D
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2010, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 10, 2010, 06:49:46 PM
<sarcasm>Sounds great! :w00t: </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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 09:51:45 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2010, 10:50:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 11, 2010, 11:09:37 AM
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.
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 :blush:).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Scipio on March 12, 2010, 02:03:36 PM
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.
I agree with you.
That's the reason why I was so annoyed, I think. He does do a good job in several aspects, which is why I finished the trilogy. If only he had sucked a bit more, I wouldn't have bothered and been happier. Or if the mix had worked out a little better, I wouldn't have been as annoyed.
Ah well, at least we're getting a decent conversation out of it on Languish :cheers: