r/TheFirstLaw

Rereading The First Law, and also having reread both some Pratchett and The Blacktongue Thief recently, I’ve come to a conclusion: I like my fantasy witty. I especially love the sort of wry, Chandleresque voice Abercrombie and Buehlmann’s characters have. I tried to read Starling’s The Starving Saints and found it a struggle: no humour at all. Similarly, The Straight Razor Cure by Polansky, my next pick, lacks clever wit. Grimdark or no, which writers bring wit to the genre in your opinion?

This conversation between Jezal and Glokta. Glokta was already growing disloyal an hour after Bayaz left.

>“Perhaps, in time, funds could be found for some small project. Our friend cannot see everything, after all, and what he does not see will do no harm. I am sure between the two of us, quietly… we could do some little good. But not yet.”

The infamous magic torture scene hits different when you realize just how much stock Bayaz put in the crippled liar

>“I would like you, in fact, to do as he says.”

>A cold knot of anger pressed at Jezal’s throat. “You would have me, in effect… obey him?” Bayaz’ eyes did not deviate from his own.

>“In effect… yes.”

And finally, for all the Leo haters.

>“There has been enough bloodshed. Far more than enough. Release Lord Brock’s children.” There were several sharp intakes of breath around the table. “Allow them to join their father, or remain in the Union as private citizens, as they desire.” Bayaz glared balefully from the far end of the room, but the king did not appear intimidated. “The war is over. We won.”

A few of you asked to hear my reaction to the Last Argument of Kings, so here we are. u/Paladin20038 u/memberoftheliterati u/RevealAntique8055 u/ParagonofHats.

I mentioned in my last post that before I picked up this triology I read that you couldnt just read the first one, you had to stick it through to all three. By Euz I see why.

I think the best way to do this is by referring back to my thoughts and predictions from BTAH. I won't speak so much of the plot itself, but of our characters.

>I'll start with Glokta, he's the 'main character' if there is one. Since page 1 of TBI I've known he's going on a redemption arc, and we're very slowly getting there. Letting Eider go and showing a bit of sympathy to Vitari ... theres troubles coming, Chekovs gun and all. Why do I do this? There'll be a true answer to this question in LOAK im sure. I want to say maybe he'll die in the end, after all he's sort of hoping for it. I think he'll find some sort of satisfaction and happiness before that happens though.

Well, guess I was very wrong about that redemption arc hah. Despite probably being the evilest of all (apart from our mutual friend) he had the happiest ending ... or rather the least horrible. So I suppose I was right that he did get some sort of satisfaction. Second only to Bayaz in the Union, all powerful and somewhat happily married (somehow?). The Ardee thing I do find quite weird and gross. And we did get an answer as to 'why he does this', just not the conclusion I hoped he might come to.

>Logen. As I say, he's my favourite. But as to his direction I really have no predictions. He's already got it mostly figured out, apart from speaking some truth to Ferro. He doesnt want to fight anymore, he doesnt feel the need to settle scores. The reunion with Dogman and the gang is inevitable, surely, and I'm looking forward to that moment, and I hope its in happy circumstances.

I have pretty negative thoughts on his direction in this book. Everyone hates him, even Dogman in the end. And its not hard to see why, the Bloody Nine is Death himself, to friend and foe. Bethod's speech shows that he is much at fault for all of the situation in the North. But still, I find it hard to blame Logan for this. At least as we know him, he doesnt want the Bloody Nine to come through, Logen didn't want to kill Tul Duru, Logen didn't want to kill Dogman, Logen didn't want to kill Crummock's son

- side note Crummock was such a great character, my favourite apart from one we'll get to, and that last scene where he gets up close to Logen and tells him he knows what he did was the most unsettling and skin prickling in the book -

Logen's greatest mistake was heading back North, but even so he was only going back to all he knew. Logen does try to be a better man, but he's stuck in everyone elses percecption of him. When he asks Jezal if he is a good man, Jezal replies that he is the greatest man he's met. Logen's story is a sad and tragic one. But I did like his Soprano's style ending.

>Luthar. My least favourite of the big 3. As with Glokta I knew he was headed for a humbling and a redemption arc. But I felt it came all too quickly, in the first POV chapter after his injury he's already become a better man. The similarities with him and Glokta are blatant. Glokta was hoping for his downfall, and now Jezal has missing front teeth and was dragging his leg along. They never explained why Bayaz wanted him for the quest to the end of the world, and thats a question I'm sure will be answered eventually, I suppose its something more important than Logen and Ferros abilities. So he's got a big role to play.

Well, Jezal went from my least favourite to my favourite. I knew his redemption came too quickly, and he did slip into his old ways rather soon again. But he truly did redeem himself in the end, he became a better man. In a better world he truly would have been a good king ... but alas. He has to acquiese to Glokta, doubly painful as he is with Ardee. Whilst he may be King his end was maybe the saddest of all, the unrealised potential of all the people he could have helped.

>On Ferro, I find her frustrating, but I suppose thats the point. Can she ever change her nature? The back end of BTAH suggests so, but its not going to be an easy journey. Maybe she too will find peace.

Much like the other two books Ferro was the most non-entity character. She wanted vegeance, she was warned it wouldn't be worth it ... and it wasn't. Reduced to madness she fell away into the darkness. There isn't much more to be said about her, other than she is worth some pity.

>West is probably my second favourite, despite the awful way he treated Ardee in the end of book one. A man from humbler beginners struggling to find his place before his 'betters'. I hope things end well for him, but I guessing we'll see Furious once or twice more before its all over. I also predict he will end up in charge of the armies, after a bitter struggle.

Hey I actually got a prediction right. I really enjoyed seeing Lord Marshal West rise to the fore leads the armies to victory. But men don't get the things they deserve, a sad and painful end for a good man trying his best.

>Bayaz ... there's still secrets there, dark secrets most likely. His death I'm most sure of, at the hands of Quai no doubt. There is .... something ... going on there. Perhaps Khalul has got to him some how. Quai is present but doenst do a whole lot. A different character entirely from book one. I think he'll turn out like a Judas figure, betraying his master and probably regretting it.

Well, say anything for the First of the Magi, say he's an excellent puppet master. From the beginning of LAOK I could see it coming, but he truly turned out to be the evillest of all. The deaths and suffering of untold millions across the millenia all for his fickle squabble with Khalul. I was severely hoping Jezal or Logen would plant a knife between his shoulder blades in the last few chapters. I don't know about any of the other TFL books, but he does need his comeuppance.

LOAK is a great, every 30 pages there were events that would have been the biggest in the previous two books. An absolutely thrilling read.

But as I'm sure you can tell I'm a little bitter about how everything finished. I suppose I'm too used to reading fantasy with a 'good guys win bad guys lose' ending.

But, you have to be realistic about these things

Any first law character is fair game. And explain why if you have time.

Fuck: Selest Dan Heugen. A hot but insufferable redhead. Also might be a thousand year old radioactive demon

Marry: Shylo Vitari. One of the only characters shown to be in a loving relationship, and still hot enough to disguise herself as one of the world's most expensive prostitutes in Cardotti's

Kill: The bald bastard

I just finished the entire series, and have quite a few unanswered questions or things that just don't quite make sense:

1. Logen is shown to be absolutely psychotic in the past, so why does Threetrees and the rest follow him?
2. Why is Bethod’s entire mega-army just fine with allying with Shanka?
3. Hildi showing up with Bayaz at the very end is jarring and doesn’t make much sense.
4. How does Savine still have money and power both during and after The Great Change? They destroyed all the banks and more or less destroyed the systems of ownership. The fact that so many of the wealthy and powerful remain so feels like a big plot hole.
5. Why hasn’t anyone tried to kill Bayaz? Calder is kept cowed for decades because of one threat, but deals with threats all the time. Same with Jezal. Bayaz almost killed himself fighting in Before They Are Hanged, and is clearly vulnerable.
6. Fenris the Feared, an absolute menace for thousands of years, turns out to only be able to do it because Caurib is casting spells near him the entire time?
7. Threetrees’ gang knocking West and Burr off their horses made no sense. “We’re smart so we knew where you’d ride ahead of other people and put up a rope you definitely wouldn’t see”
8. Characters just magically know stuff when it’s convenient. Bayaz knows everything but didn’t see The Great Change coming. Cabrian somehow knows where Bayaz and co. are in Before They Are Hanged. Yulwei knows where Ferro is. There are definitely more examples.
9. The scale of these wars that happen throughout don’t quite fit with what happens with the plot. Almost every book there seems to be a complete depletion of an army, only for the next book to have enough troops to be occupying somewhere.
10. Glokta’s plot to have Zuri near Savine when the time is right to attack Sulfur is wildly luck-based. Savine almost dies multiple times, which would render this plot useless.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not as good as the first law. Still I found myself looking forward to reading from the top necromancer in europes pov and found them strangly more endearing than last time?
I wish he would make more first law given where it ended but kind of pumped for the heretics at the same time.

I heard before that TH was one of the favorites in the series for many people here, and now that I’ve finished it I can see why.

The pace, the characters, and story are all top notch. I also really enjoyed thinking through all the nuances about being a hero.

It goes beyond the cliche of “our heroes are someone else’s villains”, and gets into a much more personal level. Is there such a thing as being a hero? Is it even a good thing to be a hero? What is a hero after all?

Hero in this book almost feels like a terrible thing for you and all around you. The weight of a name, the blood cycle, the cheapness of life, the power games, are all the bread and butter of being a hero. Every character’s arc hammers this concept down.

Finree insults Gorst by calling him a hero. Black down dies by the weight of his name. Craw can’t find peace outside the black business, Calder finds out that heroes are just discardable pawns in the game of power, and beck performs what might be the only truly heroic act in the book by being a coward.

Amazing stuff. Looking forward to reading Red Country.

Edit: how could I forget about corporal Tunny? He, who has done everything in his power to not be a hero, but in end is a hero through and through.

Mine, is how often people puff out their cheeks. Somebody got chewed out and they puff out their cheeks. Somebody is about to lose the throne and they puff out their cheeks. Somebody just died and they puff out their cheeks. It just breaks immersion for me

Hi,

Off topic but ive just picked up The Devils (kindle edition) for 99p on amazon uk.

Thought I'd share in case anyone didn't have it and was looking to buy.

Worked out perfectly for me as it was the next book on my buy list.

I just finished the entire series, and since people hated on my tier lists I made last night, here are some opinions I have that will not garner any praise:

1. Not enough major characters die in the whole series. I think we get Cosca, Gorst, Orso, Jezal, Dogman, Calder, Stour? It feels like West, Cosca, Orso, and Calder are the only ones in 10 books that feel like they were a major character and their death isn’t just old age or something. Jezal hadn’t been a main character in many books and dies off screen, and Dogman dies of old age. Gorst feels not a big enough character to really make the list. Just feels like too few given how crazy the series is on war after war, revolution, death death death, more war.
2. On that note, sometimes felt like too many characters kept coming back from the dead or living too long. Caurib surviving Black Dow’s axe to the head? Come on… Cosca surviving a gut wound? Vitari continuing to be a badass for multiple books after getting rekt by The Bloody Nine?
3. Bayaz is a piece of shit because he’s incompetent, greedy, selfish, and regressive, not because he kills and manipulates people by the thousands.
4. On that note I like Bayaz. He views people as ants and I’m so into it. I just wish he had better goals.
5. The biggest tragedy in the series is that the status quo of a system of oppression and greed is maintained at the end, despite The Great Change’s valiant attempt to disrupt it. Judge fell horribly short of casting off the elite ruling class.
6. The First Law series is better than the Age of Madness series. AoM felt a bit more of a dynamic story and a greater breadth of great characters, but the insane quality of the characters in TFL is unmatched. Logen, Glokta, Cosca, Ferro, West, Bayaz, and Jezal > Savine, Leo, Vick, Broad, Orso, Clover, and Rikke. I wanted to like the characters in AoM more, I wanted to love Vick and Rikke more than I did, but they just don’t match up.
7. Calder was never really shown to be cunning. This felt like an undeserved “tell instead of show”.
8. Ardee is a pretty disappointing character - seems like the woman character with the least agency. I do like that all she does is drink and complain, though.
9. Rikke doomed Orso, and for no reason at all.
10. On that note, The Trouble With Peace sets Orso up for a homerun amazing character, but The Wisdom of Crowds absolutely dumpsters this notion.
11. I don’t like Logen’s story with the addition of Red Country and Sharp Ends. They don’t fit Logen of the original series, and aren’t even consistent with themselves. His character is quite inconsistent. The scrapping of the Bedesh descendant angle and retconning made his whole story clumsy.
12. The Great Change was a bit cheesy and over the top. You can’t even get two people with the same goal to do be on the same page, how is everyone universally just so on board and then so ready to drop it the minute Leo charges back in?
13. I don’t like how Rikke is not that inspiring of confidence, then becomes incompetent (because her Long Eye is a fraud), then turns out to be a mastermind (because her Long Eye is legit), then the twist is that her Long Eye actually didn’t do anything to help her. So then her immediate transition into super competent and badass is a bit unearned in retrospect.
14. Savine has almost no character growth in Age of Madness. Every time she seems like she might have some, she regresses.
15. There’s too many random ass (usually magical) things referenced (which should have big ramifications) and then never mentioned again. The Great Temple of Thond from Sharp Ends, Master Poisoners in Better Served Cold, the mechanical dragon and the Dragon People in Red Country, Logen speaking to spirits in The Blade Itself.

If Leo dan Fraud and Turncoat Rikke have a million haters, then I am one of them. If Leo dan Fraud and Turncoat Rikke have ten haters, then I am one of them. If Leo dan Fraud and Turncoat Rikke have only one hater then that is me. If Leo dan Fraud and Turncoat Rikke have no haters, then that means I am no longer on earth. If the world is for Leo dan Fraud and Turncoat Rikke, then I am against the world.

I'm counting on you, Lord Bayaz. I am so sorry I ever doubted you.

I just started the blade itself and Glokta is freaking hilarious.

Is there any correlation between Joe abercrombie and Terry Pratchett?

Maybe its just the dry witty humor than stems from that area of the world, but as a massive Terry Pratchett fan, this book has taken me by suprise with Gloktas first chapter.

I read The Devils and it had its funny moments, but The Blade Itself is already hilarious in its subtleties.

I was unsure if there was any correlation, and couldn't find anything concrete when I looked their names up together.

Its a stretch I'm sure, kind of doubting myself now the longer I type this post out; but on the other side of the coin, Pratchett is a giant in his own right in the fantasy genre and I was just curious.

The only reason he "won" in the first books is because he found a WMD in his shed. Without that, he'd be dinner for the prophet. That's not skill, it's luck. After that, he loses power and influence in every single book (other than The Heroes) after that through his poor decisions.

The most obvious mistake is he chose Glokta to have complete and ultimate power. First of all, is completely immune to any sort of torture or intimidation due to his time in the Gurkish prisons, and second of all, has betrayed anyone he has ever worked for. Bayaz also revealed his secrets including his control over the banks in a villain speech to this disloyal individual. Within a day or so of leaving Glokta was already planning on removing the banks and by the end of the series, nearly all of his infrastructure is gone. He should have just let someone incompetent but harmless (Jezal!) run things.

Other major Bayaz L's

• Lost Styria to Monza, and lost three wars trying to get it back.
• Bankrupted a country he controlled to a bank he controlled (???)
• Lost the Far Country to the Old Empire
• Spent the whole second trilogy getting in magic fights with his crazy ex while there was a major uprising
• Allowed 3 Gurkish eaters to infiltrate the highest levels of the union and kill his most loyal apprentice

The only other success he had was raising Calder to power in the north. But like the first trilogy, it was based entirely off luck (If Ishri hadn't got tired of pink barbarians and the shitty weather, she would have had her own counter-offer) and he chose an individual with a history of rebelling against powerful people (he wasn't afraid of the man who held his pregnant wife hostage) who would eventually fuck him over too.

All the history stories Bayaz tells about allegedly running the Union from the shadows in years past are about as trustworthy as his stories about Kanedias killing Juvens. In all likelihood, he just took credit for the work of more competent people. The idea of Bayaz being a mastermind manipulator is another lie, just like the idea of him being a kind, Gandalf-like wizard. In reality, he is an incompetent person whose power almost exclusively comes from having OP magic (endless life, unfindable hideout, magic WMDs, can magic torture anyone)

I’m rereading TFL and I was really moved by both the deaths of Cathill and Three Trees. The abruptness of the first, with the Dogman putting his hands on her warm cheeks and asking for a blanket, was really sudden and caught me off guard with the delicacy of the language. The latter, when Harding Grim spoke - perhaps a cliché to have the most taciturn of characters speak up to heighten the emotional impact, but one that worked for me. Which other moments have you found moving?

Specifically more about Joe Abercrombie's writing style.

[Edit 3: Putting this at the top. I'm not specifically talking about Glokta's character development, it's just the first example I came across and am using. Please stop with the passive-aggressiveness making fun of me for having a "short attention span", or telling me that tiktok ruined my life, or telling me to take my ADHD meds, or to go back and take 10th grade literature classes for not understanding how characterization works. I've read books before where authors go heavy on exposition and long winded descriptions of irrelevant details, like the wheel of time series. I get that. I'm a retired military member with two teenage children and a busy career. I have very limited time to listen to audiobooks and/or sit down and read and I want to ensure I am investing my time wisely. I don't have the luxury of just spending dozens of hours just to find out his writing style isn't my cup of tea and that's ok. I'm just trying to get opinions and some reviews on the authors writing style. I hope this community isn't as toxic as a few people seem to be.]

Chapter 2 introduces Glokta, and there is a sequence of him walking down the stairs, and his thoughts about... how much is sucks walking down the stairs. And it's a long sequence. Now I was on the audiobook version and it seemed... very long.

Now I had just finished reading a different series by an author with a very different writing style that was much more concise and fast paced. So maybe it's just the abrupt change that got me and I just need to be patient and adjust. But my question is Joe's writing style typically more detailed and descriptive with long sequences of just describing things that the reader could otherwise fill in themselves?

Maybe there is a purpose to spending 10-15 minutes listening to Glokta's internal monologue about how much stairs suck and his character development, and if so that's fine. Just tell me that. But I've started reading books that I just can't finish because the author will spend far too much time describing every aspect of a characters appearance or the environment around them, and it never has a purpose for the story.

So, what are the opinions on Joe's writing style? I'm also aware this is the First Law Trilogy subreddit so the the answers are going to have some bias to them.

Edit: I think I wasn't clear in my post. I'm asking about Joes writing style. Gloktas first chapter is just the example I was using to understand if all the books are going to be a similar style or not. I'm not trying to understand where the author is specifically going with Gloktas character.

Immortal/magic characters counted separately from non immortal ones.

Murder (modern legal definition of murder):

Magic: Ferro. She was involved with the Seed plus all the random people in Gurkhul. Could also be Glaustrod since his use of the seed was on a much larger city.

Non-Magic. Ninefingers!

Sex:

Magic: Cawneil. She seems like the only wizard type of character who's still interested in humanity's pastime, since she flirted with Jezal. Although we never actually see her have sex, if you do the math she's probably done it a lot. The one we know for sure is Bayaz since he's had at least two exes (Cawneil and Tolomei)

Non-Magic: Any of the 'degenerate noble' stock characters could have this title, but it's probably Orso