The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie

[Jacen]

It could be another spirit that takes over his body, but I think I like it better as just another side of Logen. It being an outside spirit means none of the Bloody Nine's awful acts are Logen's fault.

Him being fully to blame for the tragedies brought on by his animalistic blood lusting side- that slaughter's everyone, makes for a more interesting and twisted character, IMHO.

[Nerdanel]

The awful acts can be seen as Logen's fault if he knowingly and willingly invited the demonic spirit into him once upon a time.

I can't see Logen/Bloody-Nine as a single, unified personality. They are radically different, and we get POV scenes from both so we know. Also, the transformation from one to other is instantaneous, total, and only happens in battle. Most interestingly, the Bloody-Nine's fighting style is similar to an Eater's and should be impossible for a normal human to emulate. Logen's bouts of superspeed and superstrength are coincident with the personality change into the Bloody-Nine while in his normal personality Logen is merely good for a non-magical human.

Really, at this point the explanation that doesn't posit a separate spirit entity is the contrived one.

[delete this account pls]

I think Logen can still be partially blamed for the Bloody Nine, even if it is some sort of demonic possession, because he knows what type of circumstances will bring out the Bloody Nine, yet he continually seeks out those sort of circumstances. Logen continually chooses war over peace, when he knows that the Bloody Nine will surface in battle and commit acts of random slaughter.

So, yeah, the Bloody Nine is technically responsible for killing Tul Duru and Crummoch's kid, but Logen is responsible for bringing the Bloody Nine to the party in the first place. I think it's also likely that over time, Logen and the Bloody Nine have parted ways somewhat - I got the impression they were a lot more similar in the past, when they worked for Bethod. Bethod said that in the early days it was always Logen pushing him into war - the Bloody Nine couldn't have been in control all of those times.

[Datepalm]

I think Logen can still be partially blamed for the Bloody Nine, even if it is some sort of demonic possession, because he knows what type of circumstances will bring out the Bloody Nine, yet he continually seeks out those sort of circumstances. Logen continually chooses war over peace, when he knows that the Bloody Nine will surface in battle and commit acts of random slaughter.

So, yeah, the Bloody Nine is technically responsible for killing Tul Duru and Crummoch's kid, but Logen is responsible for bringing the Bloody Nine to the party in the first place. I think it's also likely that over time, Logen and the Bloody Nine have parted ways somewhat - I got the impression they were a lot more similar in the past, when they worked for Bethod. Bethod said that in the early days it was always Logen pushing him into war - the Bloody Nine couldn't have been in control all of those times.

Dosen't Logen not actually remember that?

I too much prefer Bloody Nine as absoloutely a natural part of Logen, and it seems to fit much better with the whole theme of the books, which is why I can't figure out why Abercrombie would choose to seperate them.

[delete this account pls]

Dosen't Logen not actually remember that?

He acts like he doesn't remember, but I got the impression it was denial of the usual sort, rather than the straight up memory wipe that the Bloody Nine does. Also, Logen often remembers most of the stuff he does as the Bloody Nine anyway.

I think Logen had just been telling himself for so long that Bethod was the 'villain', and that Bethod was to blame for all this, that he started believing it, and he minimised in his own mind the bigpart he played in bethod's rise.

[Werthead]

I very much saw the Blood Nine as, at best, another persona that emerges due to Logen going into a Viking-style battle-rage. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that. LAOK made it damn clear that Logen takes responsibility and blame for what happens whilst he's in the Bloody Nine mode, which suggests it isn't a case of possession.

[Errant Bard]

Considering Joe has said that he wanted to show that someone could be at the same time the best man and the worst mofo on the earth depending on who you asked, I am reasonably certain the bloody-nine isn't an external entity. What the bloody-nine does is Logen's fault, and Logen himself isn't really all white, as Bethod shows us when he reveals that the guy who pushed him to crush other clans was Logen, as he wanted to be "the biggest name in the North" or somesuch.

For the difference in point of view, it can be easily explained by simple berserker rage, I agree with Wert. It is a fact that when in that mode, a warrior would not recognize allies from enemies. It is normal for a berserker to shrug off injuries, laugh, and slay anyone in range, it must even be the definition, and then I don't think you can explain Viking berserkers as being possessed by some spirit when they go into that mode.

Now having said that, I think there is definitely magic involved when Logen changes: he always evokes the cold that comes with it, and cold in the First Law is surprisingly consistently associated with magic use, and his strength and movement, even considering that berserker rage allows the warrior to go past physical inhibitions, is a bit high. My view is that Logen's rage taps into his magic potential and sort of lets it flow in his veins, a crude strengthening spell, like what the witch did for the feared.

On a more meta note, I also think that Joe didn't do that good a job with Logen, when he wanted to show the duality of some persons, or actually the difference of opinion depending on the point of view, and the difference in behaviour depending on the environment. The way we are shown that Logen is quietly replacing Bethod and enlarging the war, becoming worse than Bethod, is nice, but the Bloody-Nine is sort of a cop-out, and Logen's thoughts are a bit too tame, somehow.

Anyway, I was probably the only one to think that the best character was Ferro up to book 2 and who was really disappointed with the character building of Last Argument of King.

[Datepalm]

On a more meta note, I also think that Joe didn't do that good a job with Logen, when he wanted to show the duality of some persons, or actually the difference of opinion depending on the point of view, and the difference in behaviour depending on the environment. The way we are shown that Logen is quietly replacing Bethod and enlarging the war, becoming worse than Bethod, is nice, but the Bloody-Nine is sort of a cop-out, and Logen's thoughts are a bit too tame, somehow.

Anyway, I was probably the only one to think that the best character was Ferro up to book 2 and who was really disappointed with the character building of Last Argument of King.

Thats kind of a dissapointing conclusion, though I can't find another layer in it.

I really liked Ferro as well, but there the dissapointing charecterization is exactly inline with the general theme, though its another case where trope subversion trumps readability. She's just too frustrating. (I kept expecting something interesting between her and Glokta, he's all about pain, she dosen't feel any, etc, but that would probably have demanded too much growth from her.)

[Errant Bard]

I really liked Ferro as well, but there the dissapointing charecterization is exactly inline with the general theme, though its another case where trope subversion trumps readability. She's just too frustrating.

Well, for me it's not as much like I expected anything else from her, but that I expected something else from the writer, in the way he expresses how she is -she needn't have changed what she did-. I understand the goal was to show that not everyone can change, that there is no such thing as love conquering all, and that feelings can be superficial and shrugged off, in line with all the downer pessimistic outlook of the whole book, but I thought I had glimpsed some complexity in Ferro's character in book 1 and 2, even if her façade never really changed, and that complexity got completely wiped out in book 3, making her into a truly flat and uninteresting character. This is just too simplistic and easy, and I feel it is bad writing, though of course Joe has way more talent than I will ever have and I may have just missed something. Still, Ferro failed hard, in my eyes.

[Datepalm]

Well, for me it's not as much like I expected anything else from her, but that I expected something else from the writer, in the way he expresses how she is -she needn't have changed what she did-. I understand the goal was to show that not everyone can change, that there is no such thing as love conquering all, and that feelings can be superficial and shrugged off, in line with all the downer pessimistic outlook of the whole book, but I thought I had glimpsed some complexity in Ferro's character in book 1 and 2, even if her façade never really changed, and that complexity got completely wiped out in book 3, making her into a truly flat and uninteresting character. This is just too simplistic and easy, and I feel it is bad writing, though of course Joe has way more talent than I will ever have and I may have just missed something. Still, Ferro failed hard, in my eyes.

I read that flatenning as deliberate - what she does have in way of non completely psychotic personality gets demolished by the Seed and Bayaz (and her own issues, ofcourse.) as she literally stops being human. On the one hand, she manages not participate in Bayaz's game, but on the other, she still gets destroyed anyway - no escaping the cycle.

[Zoë Sumra]

I read that flatenning as deliberate - what she does have in way of non completely psychotic personality gets demolished by the Seed and Bayaz (and her own issues, ofcourse.) as she literally stops being human. On the one hand, she manages not participate in Bayaz's game, but on the other, she still gets destroyed anyway - no escaping the cycle.

It is, in that respect, unfortunate that Abercrombie chose to do that in the only female POV character, who was simultaneously the only one played straight. The overall effect - particularly with reference to the treatment by the author of all the other female characters in the books, every one of whom from my recollection was reduced to a vagina - is disturbing.

[gladius]

I 've read the first two books, and wasn't impressed. I preferred the first book, because the quest storyline in the second bored me to tears. You have a good story with Glokta and the North, and you waste my time with a stupid quest? :rolleyes:

[Datepalm]

It is, in that respect, unfortunate that Abercrombie chose to do that in the only female POV character, who was simultaneously the only one played straight. The overall effect - particularly with reference to the treatment by the author of all the other female characters in the books, every one of whom from my recollection was reduced to a vagina - is disturbing.

Yup, I desperately wanted more initiative from Ferro, and more breaking out of her particular mould - which all the other characters do manage to do (even if they usually discover they've even worse outside it) as it is, she basically never does anything for herself until she decided to rebel against Bayaz, and then that goes terribly for her.

I kind of liked Gloktas not quite love interest from the other city (whos name i've forgotten) especially when she ignored him and came back, and also the redhead with the children, but both were minor characters at best.

[Errant Bard]

I read that flatenning as deliberate - what she does have in way of non completely psychotic personality gets demolished by the Seed and Bayaz (and her own issues, ofcourse.) as she literally stops being human.

I have a problem with that, as the flattening I am talking about isn't about her becoming more or less psychotic, but about how it is shown to the reader. I believe there were ways to show that she fell back into her old mindset/became non-human without making her into a forgettable caricature that was not really anything more than a footnote in the whole last book.

Of course, on the opposite of Eloisa, I think it is great for women in literature that more of them are allowed to not fall into the nurturing/couple cliché, even after meeting "love". Ferro does embody this, and it is good. I am firmly of the opinion that unconventional behaviours are what makes a difference, especially if those are "bad" or "hard" behaviours, as those are almost always reserved to men. Note this is different from the usual "Queen Bitch" archetype, as we have here, essentially, a female good guy that does not end in a romantic relation and most of all, that is not dependant, with Ferro. Of course, the execution is not up to par with the ambition, in my eyes, but I won't criticize the choices and the idea behind it.

Thinking about it, my reaction to LAOK would be summed up by: "good ideas, mediocre execution", in that vein.

[Nerdanel]

By the way, I was initially sure that the Shanka were just humans and Logen was being racist in his POV. Then it turned out that they really were vicious Orcs/Neanderthals that had no visible character depth whatsoever. I mean, Tolkien's Orcs are on a completely different level from the faceless Shanka masses that didn't even turn out to have much in the way of story purpose. Sure they are a fantasy trope, but I didn't notice any subversion or parody going on with them, unless you think their extreme flatness was a form of stealth parody. The term "Flathead" by the way is straight from Jean M. Auel where it was a derogative word for a Neanderthal if my translated copies can be relied on.

As for the female characters go, I think Ardee was the best of the sorry lot, having something almost resembling of character depth. The one that bothers me the most is Cawneil. I was thinking Jezal must have been naturally immune to her enchantments and was wondering if Cawneil playing everyone for fools, but based on how dismissive Abercrombie was on my ending ideas, Cawneil was probably really that pathetic. A supposedly-powerful magus, a student of Juvens himself, and she wastes her time noodling around in a deteriorating house with a staff that can't even cook a half-decent meal. Seriously, I think at least one dish should not have been a failure.

I suppose Cawneil is meant to be the anti-Galadriel, just like Gorst is the Schrödinger's Éowyn and Ardee + Terez make up the anti-Arwen. It's pretty funny how Tolkien has stronger female characters than Abercrombie the modern writer.

[Datepalm]

I have a problem with that, as the flattening I am talking about isn't about her becoming more or less psychotic, but about how it is shown to the reader. I believe there were ways to show that she fell back into her old mindset/became non-human without making her into a forgettable caricature that was not really anything more than a footnote in the whole last book.

Of course, on the opposite of Eloisa, I think it is great for women in literature that more of them are allowed to not fall into the nurturing/couple cliché, even after meeting "love". Ferro does embody this, and it is good. I am firmly of the opinion that unconventional behaviours are what makes a difference, especially if those are "bad" or "hard" behaviours, as those are almost always reserved to men. Note this is different from the usual "Queen Bitch" archetype, as we have here, essentially, a female good guy that does not end in a romantic relation and most of all, that is not dependant, with Ferro. Of course, the execution is not up to par with the ambition, in my eyes, but I won't criticize the choices and the idea behind it.

Thinking about it, my reaction to LAOK would be summed up by: "good ideas, mediocre execution", in that vein.

I think I see what you mean. I liked Ferros character percisely because she got to be a role rarely played by women - although right off the bat it was clearly portrayed as a negative role and she was there because of the usual vengeance for rape story, but all that aside - I do wish Ferros charecterization, subversions and all, had been nearly as detailed and as prominent to the plot as Logan or Jezal, for example.

[Gus]

I always thought of Logens connection to the Bloody Nine to be similar to a alcoholic. At the start of the first book he saw a chance to head south and start over dry after hitting the bottom. Initially he does well but the precence of violence makes him fall back into old habits a few times. When he meets up with hid old buddies that he really falls back into the old bad habits. He lacks the ability to function just as Logen due to his history and other peoples expectations. The Bloody Nine is a part of him no matter if it is demonic influence or not and he can make a choice to not put himself in situations where he lets that side take over. He reminds me a little of the main character in The Wrestler in some ways.

[Nerdanel]

Re: the map. After I finally got it around my head (thanks to this forum) after the first book that Middlerland was an island in the Circle Sea, I started to notice how symmetrical the whole thing was (and that Westport was east the Union and every scene in the books).

The House of the Maker is in the center of Adua. Adua is in the center of Midderland. Midderland is in the center of the Circle Sea, which should be about circular based on its name. There is a large landmass to the north, to the south, and to the west, while the east has an archipelago that might be result of a flooded or shattered land mass. The protruding areas of the north, west, and south are connected by land bridges based on the fact that the quest couldn't just sail to their destination. (Well, they could have based on what we know about the world's geography, but it would have been very circuitous indeed.) All of these lands are within the Circle of the World, which appears to be a circular barrier or something marking the edge of the world of humans, with the House of the Maker in the centre.

More than that, the west and the north exhibit symmetry based on what I have managed to glean from the text. Both have an inconvenient large river that forms a barrier, and near the distant tips both have a mountain range that forms another barrier. Logen crosses one range in the first book and another in the second book.

In short, think of a flat world shaped like a compass rose. I guess Euz could have ordered the world that way given his unspecified power limits.

Is this what Abercrombie didn't want us to see?

[Chirios]

I think it was clear as day that Logen and the Bloody-Nine were not a same person. If Abercrombie intended them to be, he did it spectacularly badly.

My guess is that the young and stupid Logen invited the spirit known as the Bloody-Nine into his body in order to make himself into an unstoppable warrior, and that turned out to have drawbacks, even if Logen didn't initially care about them. I think over time Logen learned to be formidable on his own, but he was still just a human while the Bloody-Nine was not, and the spirit would automatically take over when Logen couldn't make it himself.

As a support, consider the case of Logen taking a spirit of fire inside of him and releasing it later in battle. It's an isolated incident without much relevance on anything, but I think it's in the story to reveal that Logen can do more with spirits than just talk to them, suggesting that it might be foreshadowing that will eventually be revealed as such in a sequel.

The trilogy left several sequel hooks, some of them quite blatant.

I agree, but what people have forgotten is the tale of the three brothers.

Juvens learned the Art, how to bend the world to his will.

Kanedias learned Making, how to mix magic with the world to make things which frankly are impossible without complex circuitry and running power lines, and even then are still iffy.

But the third brother, Bedesh, he learned how to manipulate spirits.

Logen is the heir to Bedesh's magic. I think that the Bloody Nine is a product of his own psyche, but that he is subconsiously using spirit magic to increase his strength and speed.

Another thing, I sent an email asking Joe how Bedesh died. Joe replied:

"Who says he's dead?"

[Errant Bard]

Is this what Abercrombie didn't want us to see?

If I remember correctly, it's because he feels a map, or the shape of it, isn't important and detracts from the reading experience, in that it breaks immersion and makes readers into analytic hair splitters, while the story can describe the world just as well and in a way the the author controls.

I tend to agree with him, I don't care about maps. It was superfluous in all the fantasy novels I read, except when I decided to dissect ASOIAF for a timeline instead of enjoying the story. I actually don't even look at them anymore, I don't see the point, what's important is in the text anyway, if I want images I'll pick up a comic.