r/TheFirstLaw

I don't know if this fan base is also part of the dungeon crawler Carl series, but in the newest book there's a line "to quote a guy more mentally ill than even you "you gotta be realistic about these things."" I heard it and I immediately knew who he was quoting!

I’ve seen a LOT of conflicting opinions on this sub about which cycle we like the most. Cycles are defined as three books each: The First Law, The Standalones, and The Age of Madness. So I’m posting a poll to see what this sub likes best!

Defend yourselves in the comments!

View Poll

Loved the book. Return to form for Abercrombie after some inconsistent entries. Orso was super entertaining. Felt it was a tad fast paced though.

Things I didnt like about a little hatred

I don't know specifically what you're referring to, because there's a lot that could be considered political messaging in this book. A lot of it is par for the course in an Abercrombie book, but other things took me aback. They sounded way off, like the author had taken a sudden turn to preaching.

Some examples:

- Rikke suddenly coming out as a liberal soul who doesn't mind other people's sexual orientations, even though her homeland has so far been portrayed as the typical barbarian, hyper-masculine culture with very hard-set gender roles (Wonderful being the exception that confirms the rule)

- on the opposite side, Leo being a dumb homophobe who can't even explain why he thinks same-sex relations seem weird to him. Nice way to compliment his buffoonish personality

- Savine's face-maid (lisbit) who is the only overtly racist character, once again a nice way to complement a vapid personality. With the exception of her and, once again, Leo, everyone else is perfectly accepting of hordes of Gurkish immigrants flooding into the country.

- Every woman is extremely competent at what they do, while most male POV characters are idiots. Two of them are even under the wheel of their domineering mothers. (rikke to leo, savine to orso, wonderful to clover, liddy and may to gunnar)

- The few black characters are extremely competent as well, mostly seen in Savine's right-hand and even in the very short scene with her brothers (where they promptly make fun of the POV character for being an oblivious simpleton).

• Orso telling Leo it’s great that swaths of immigrants are coming into the country and diluting their cultural identity because they should feel honoured that these people would want to come to THEIR country.

 

Issue I had with these was they they didnt feel like flawed viewpoints from flawed characters. It felt like the narrative took a break so that JA could insert the “correct” political opinion. Now, the very first Abercrombie book also had women and black people (Ferro was both), but most previous books did this in a natural way that fit the story. I've read every single Abercrombie book so far, and this is the first time that I get the feeling he expressly wrote characters to fill diversity quotas, whether consciously or unconsciously. Before, it went with the narrative and was more thought provoking, now it’s intrusive and spoon feeding. 

Just want to know if he lays off or becomes more subtle in the next 2 books or if its still blatantly and immersion breakingly liberal.

I've recently started the 8th book, and it's just a small quote, but the Ai mentions an even more insane person that Carl that often says, "you have to be realistic about these things" and I couldn't help but laugh and feel good knowing it was a total reference to the First Law series.

I'm almost done my first read (or listen through) the First Law books and wanted to write some thoughts on the (excellent) penultimate book, given that the original trilogy contains one of the best twists I can think of in the third book (and I want to speculate), and also because there's an interesting 'what if' I want to examine. I think this book was much stronger than the previous one, but it's hard not to appreciate all the setting up A Little Hatred did. No spoilers for The Wisdom of Crowds please!

1. What if Brock had won? This is the scenario I'm most interested in- I think it's pretty clear that the Union is on its last legs, and I think there's no chance of the Union under Brock meeting the crises facing Orso. I think it's very interesting that there has not been a capitalist or bourgeois revolution in the Union, given that the government is largely controlled by the Crown (of which the Closed Council is just representative). Brock's rebellion was doomed (and caused) by the financial crisis in the Union- the rebelling aristocracy would have no way to resolve that crisis without abandoning their various rights and privileges, which they never would have done. I guess the equivalent of the Jacobins in the Union is the Solar Society, which seems politically unmotivated for some reason
2. What will be the fate of Orso's faction? I was guessing that a full workers rebellion was going to occur in book 3 but JA beat me to it in the very last chapter of this book. Oh well. I think the Union is doomed as it stands, with or without the Breakers. From what is said about Risinau's lectures etc, the Breakers and Burners haven't developed much of the political theory that appeared in our world in the late 19th century, so it seems like their revolution is categorically unable to achieve a communist society or anything of that sort. Maybe they'll afford the bourgeois revolution that the Union so obviously needs to not collapse completely.
3. Rikke's prophesy that 'I saw a wolf eat the sun. Then a lion ate the wolf. Then a lamb ate the lion. Then an owl ate the lamb' is pretty clear at this point. The lamb is obviously Orso, and presumably the owl is Rikke herself. How in the circle of the world the North could manage a war with the Union at this point is a bit of a mystery. Guess I'll have to keep reading! Either way, it seems Orso is going to lose big time in the final book, although 'ate' in the context of the prophecy has not meant 'killed' in any of the events that have actually occurred. Hopefully my boy pulls through, maybe not as a king though.
4. What the hell has Bayaz even been doing in this book? Why is Valint and Balk deliberately trying to bankrupt the Union? Seems like his centuries of hard work are about to blow up in his face. It is kinda funny that Bayaz' interference in the structure of the Union and its technology is inadvertently pulling it over the edge
5. Joe's characterisation is in full force in this book. Throughout the back half I was thinking I cannot wait to see Brock and Stour Nightfall get strung up, but when they finally get what's coming to them, there's nothing satisfying about it. Particularly Brock on the scaffold is quite an affecting scene, and I fully expected him to die in one of the saddest scenes in the entire series. There's also some subtle work with Savine- she's not as intelligent as she thinks or we were initially lead to believe. She's fooled quite soundly by Vick, gets pulled into Leo's world and stupid plans without a second thought, even does some stupid things on the way to the climactic battle. She's foolish in a much less obvious way than Leo, which is a great contrast

Does Queen Terez, by the end of book 8, let's say,- does she know who Savine really is as in her parentage ??? Not that it really matters to her in her feelings toward Jezal, so much as I wonder how she would feel about her and Orso.I never can tell but I'm interested if anyone wants to speculate with me. This is what going through an 8 long que at my local library for the devil's audiobook does to a mf

That Quai was not Quai. It was obvious something had changed about “him” when they set out on their journey but nothing concrete to point to.

As commendable as Steven Pacey’s work is, I find I am still really struggling with it.
I thought maybe I could listen while gardening or driving but if I focused on anything else and I couldn’t grasp the story at all.
Which meant I had to try and shut my eyes to absorb it, and that leads to me falling asleep every time.

Is there a trick to it?

Like did he set out to kill Juvens, Kanedias and Tolomei as a means of seizing power? Or was it just an escalating fear/need to cover up his other actions?

Bayaz is power hungry, and the deaths of Juvens and Kanedias basically left Bayaz as the most powerful figure in the world for at least a time. And meant what little oversight he once had was basically gone. Khalul likely only became an issue later when he had broken the 2nd Law and started building an army of Eaters. And he only seems to have fallen out with the remaining Magi later on.

But at the same time was he always so heartless? Juvens was his mentor, Tolomei his lover. Did he really set out to kill two demigods and his lover?