Jump to content

First Law vs. Prince of Nothing

Prince Who Was Promised

By Prince Who Was Promised,
in Literature

Recommended Posts

Errant Bard Council Member

Errant Bard

Posted
Posted

Cnaiür would totally wipe the floor with Logen. Then he'd rape him. And then Khellus and Bayaz would debate of apples vs oranges, Khellus would win the debate, but Bayaz would make a final point with a nuclear machinegun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spring Bass Council Member

Spring Bass

Posted
Posted

They're both graphic and morally gray, but I think Prince of Nothing is considerably less cynical and a downer than the First Law Trilogy. At least at the end of Prince of Nothing,

SPOILER: Prince of Nothing spoilers from entire trilogy
The Three Seas are on the process of being unified, the Consult shoved back a bit, and Kellhus is organizing for an assault on the Consult and Golgotterah. It's been brutal, but probably necessary if mankind was going to survive a Second Apocalypse. Achamian is alive, rogue, and unhappy, but not dead or maimed. Esmenet is vastly better off than she was at the beginning of the first book. The sorcerors have had their sentence of damnation "lifted" by the prophet, and female Few (and witches) are no longer automatically burned as of Judging Eye.

As opposed to the First Law,

SPOILER: First Law all of trilogy
where we find out that the great, long-standing conflict between the Union and the Gurkish Empire is nothing more than a tool in a long-running spat between Bayaz and Khalul. Or that the important laws helping to keep mankind safe from a return of the Devils and the Other Side are routinely violated by those who were taught to observe and protect them. Or watch the Captain die, Logen return to the North, and so forth. It's quite a downer.

Both of them, of course, have complex machinations, and magical people (or societies) that have centuries-long agendas going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Happy Ent Council Member

Happy Ent

Posted
Posted

I can’t see what’s so apply-orangy about the question, either.

Both are recent, multi-volume epic fantasies, strongly informed by all the genre’s tropes, and both with a very clear (and, as far as I understand) explicit ambition of exploring some of the boundaries of archetypical characters.

In particular, both include a “crazy, but reflected barbarian†who is, in fact, bat-shit crazy. Both are strongly inspired by Tolkien, even though they use it for different effects: Bakker’s world-building is Tolkieniesque in scope and ambition, whereas ’Crombie is mainly interested in Gandalf. Both works include at least one scene that is a homage to the Lord of the Rings. (Helm’s Deep, and Moria, respectively.) [Footnote: this appears only in Bakkerbook 4.]

Neither includes actual, sentient trees. (But the point goes to Bakker for pretty good arboreal themes.)

Differences? Abercrombie is extremely funny, Bakker is as funny as a Wagner opera. Abercrombie is highly readable, the character jump of the page, the pacing is quick; Bakker is annoying, conceited, in love with his own prose. Abercrombie’s dialogue is full of entertaining one-liners, Bakker’s people think and speak very naturally (which is annoying to read). Abercrombie is sometimes unpolished and the prose may be too playful, Bakker is not a master storyteller, but he’s getting better.

I’m sure there’s much more to be said, but I really have to work now...

I think, except for humour and readability, Bakker beats Abercrombie by a landslide in pretty much every dimension I can think of. Both are really good; read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spring Bass Council Member

Spring Bass

Posted
Posted
Differences? Abercrombie is extremely funny, Bakker is as funny as a Wagner opera. Abercrombie is highly readable, the character jump of the page, the pacing is quick; Bakker is annoying, conceited, in love with his own prose. Abercrombie’s dialogue is full of entertaining one-liners, Bakker’s people think and speak very naturally (which is annoying to read). Abercrombie is sometimes unpolished and the prose may be too playful, Bakker is not a master storyteller, but he’s getting better.

Those are good points. Abercrombie heavily uses humor (especially dark, sarcastic humor) in his books, whereas Bakker, aside from a few isolated bits (Kellhus's "Proyas and Cnaiur" joke in The Warrior Prophet, and possibly some early bits with the Scalpoi in The Judging Eye) is largely humorless.

Bakker's prose is more difficult to read, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "conceited".

On the other hand, Bakker's world is much more extensively developed and consistent than Abercrombie's world (Bakker's magic system is one of the more complex and developed I've ever read of that wasn't basically a repetition of Standard RPG Magic Points and Flavors, whereas Abercrombie's magic system is pretty vague on the underlying principles other than that it ultimately all comes from the Other Side). That tends to not matter too much in Abercrombie's case, since he focuses more on the characters, but to a world-building lover like myself it's important.

One's great (PoN), the other isn't (FL).

I wonder if that counts as a Summon Author spell. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walter Paisley Sellsword

Walter Paisley

Posted
Posted

One's a "Philosophicallly dense analogue of the First Crusade" with two days until retirement. One's a "Cynical, character driven take on genre tropes" who's two explosions away from suspension. Together they're going to give crime it's doctor's daily reccomended dose of APPLES & ORANGES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shryke Council Member

Shryke

Posted
Posted
One's a "Philosophicallly dense analogue of the First Crusade" with two days until retirement. One's a "Cynical, character driven take on genre tropes" who's two explosions away from suspension. Together they're going to give crime it's doctor's daily reccomended dose of APPLES & ORANGES.

Way to go man. Now PoN's gonna get shot and die in First Law's arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JGP Council Member

JGP

Posted
Posted
Way to go man. Now PoN's gonna get shot and die in First Law's arms.

PoN: [holds out the head of a Ciphrang] Here, it's yours now.

First Law: You were the one looking forward to that cabin you built Outside. [pause] PoN? PON? Noo0o0oooOOO0oo0oooo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerdanel Council Member

Nerdanel

Posted
Posted

As I see it the only thing the First Law has going vs. The Prince of Nothing is the amount of humor.

As for the areas where I think PoN is superior:

- First Law has characters who are caricatures with a few exaggerated traits. They would be fine in a short story but get really repetitive in a long trilogy, especially a character-based one. PoN has characters that feel far deeper and more real.

- PoN has characters that grow and change. The characters in First Law try to, but their efforts are stomped down by the author. This makes the characters less interesting.

- First Law tries to be insightful but mistakes rampant cynicism for insight. PoN really is insightful and a font for philosophical discussions.

- First Law has a relatively simple plot that nevertheless manages to have annoying plot holes. The plot of PoN is more complex but nevertheless better thought out.

- First Law doesn't have much in the way of worldbuilding beyond broad strokes. PoN has what may be the best worldbuilding since Tolkien. The difference is drastic.

- First Law lacks maps. PoN has maps. Both feature long-distance travel and strategic army movements, making maps needful.

- PoN has neat and powerful verbal imagery. First Law doesn't even try.

- PoN handles female characters better than First Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...