Am I the only one who thinks that the First Law Trilogy is overrated?

[db1869]

I read these books because I saw that they were so highly recommended by people on this board. I have seen a divergence of opinions about other offers like Keyes and Ericksen but pretty much uniform praise for Abercrombie. I know that he is a member of this forum which is really cool but I just think his books are overrated. Anyone agree with me? I thought the second book was the best but was very disappointed with Last Argument of Kings.

[oar]

I'm towards the end of The Blade Itself at the moment, and admittedly, I'm finding the story spoilt by having read ASOIAF first... it's not quite as descriptive, in depth or gritty as that series.

However, there are a few twists in the story that I've enjoyed so far (particularly the sword contest), and it's written with nice short chapters that give me mixed feelings; I can't get into the other world as well as other novels but I can easily put it down and back up, which is useful in reading before sleep each night.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the trilogy and seeing where it goes.

[Bellis]

To the OP:

No. I didn't dislike it, but it wasn't anything to write home about either.

[Barnes]

I enjoyed the series very much, sometimes I think when a book or movie gets rave reviews we try and knock them down a peg, pick it part, focus on the faults(not saying this is wht your doing). Forget about all the hype and other readers opinions, if you hadn't read any reviews would you have liked the series? I for one don't understand the appeal of Kings Dark Tower series, just don't like it, but many seem to, perhaps this series just wasn't for you.

[Jerol]

I won't read the 3rd book until I get it for my birthday in a couple weeks. But so far I am loving it. Is it GRRM? No, but it's damn good and I am really jonesing for the last installment. I loved the twists at the end of the 2nd book and I really like the way the characters are evolving. Joe is the real deal. Deal with it.

[Tarapas Amran]

Nope, i agree aswell, atleast to some extent.

Abercrombie is not up to the best out there (Erikson, Martin, Bakker and so on).

It's kind like reading a well written, character-based, gritty Brooksesque (or perhaps better yet; Williamsesque) triology. It felt kind of shallow, atleast after the finish. While reading it felt great but after I completed it and got some perspective it was kinda meh, I felt kinda cheap.

Glotka is a nice character but characters isn't art...

Did like the titles tho, they were probably the best.

Overall 2/5 which is acceptable.

[Ashara]

I usually put my trust in this forum's recommendations, and in Abercrombie's case it paid off so far. I am in the middle of the second book, and loving it. The characters are exciting, the magic interestingly served, and the dialogues/descriptions make me laugh all the time. I am completely charmed by Ferro, and the way she's written.

To be honest, after the Feast of Crows I look forward to finishing Abercrombie and next Lynch's book more than to the next installment of the ASOIF. I will definetly put Abercrombie above Erikson. Abercrombie imo shines where Erikson utterly fails for me - in his ability to immerse me in his world and keep me interested in it.

Bakker, on the other hand, I read on this board recommendation, and I won't pick his next series, despite all the hype surrounding him. :) Oh, and Erikson as well. Tastes differ. :)

[Mathis]

I agree, over-rated. Not bad but...I dont know, it just seemed like fantasy by numbers.

In the interests of fairness I should mention that I've only read the first two. Apparently there are some major twists in the final book which raise the level a bit, but if the first two weren't good to make me want to read the third then the writer has 'failed', right?

[quote name='Tarapas Amran' post='1506065' date='Sep 4 2008, 21.49']Overall 2/5 which is acceptable.[/quote]

Is it?

[Zoë Sumra]

I liked the first two and loved the third... at first. I've since developed some major reservations.

[Zach H]

I only read [i]The Blade Itself[/i], and did come away a bit disappointed after absorbing a lot of very positive feedback in various places, including this forum. Neither the setting nor the characterization seemed to carry the same depth as a Martin, and I didn't find really find the book to be very "gritty" or "in your face" compared to something by Matthew Stover, for instance. I'd best describe [i]The Blade Itself[/i] as a more polished take on an R.A. Salvatore style.

[TakLoufer]

[quote name='Zach H' post='1506137' date='Sep 4 2008, 16.45']I only read [i]The Blade Itself[/i], and did come away a bit disappointed after absorbing a lot of very positive feedback in various places, including this forum. Neither the setting nor the characterization seemed to carry the same depth as a Martin, and I didn't find really find the book to be very "gritty" or "in your face" compared to something by Matthew Stover, for instance. I'd best describe [i]The Blade Itself[/i] as a more polished take on an R.A. Salvatore style.[/quote]

I think someone once wrote that The First Law manages to be gritty without the characters doing gritty things. I think this is a more or less accurate assessment. The characters (especially Logen and Glokta) are gritty without being [i]too[/i] hard core about it. Surprisingly, most of the characters are rather decent, at least compared to some of Parker and Bakker's characters.

For example:

SPOILER: The Last Argument of Kings

I know Glokta tortured innocent people and all that. But imagine if it was West's fingers he was hacking off? Or, better yet, Ardee's? I was actually kind of expecting Glokta to end up in that sort of situation. Or imagine if Glokta actually carried out the threats he made against Queen's lover? Or Vitari's children? Or if he went along with torturing that rich woman he kept running into? I mean, Glokta might do nasty things to red shirts (or traitors, as in the case of Severard), but not to characters that might alienate him from the readers.

Imagine if Dogman and the gang had no scruples against butchering women and children? Would they still be so likable?

Now, don't get me wrong, I really like the First Law. In fact I'd say I like it almost, if not as much as or more than ASOIAF, if only because Abercrombie, unlike GRRM, doesn't seem to be in danger of losing control of his story.

But before I picked up the series I kept hearing about how gritty it was, but after reading it I see the grittiness is only cosmetic. The main characters ( . . .

SPOILER: The Last Argument of Kings

except Bayaz, of course

. . .) all possess moral compasses and have lines they (apparently) won't cross.

This isn't a bad thing. It's actually quiet refreshing after reading something as nihilistic as Parker's Engineer Trilogy. And Parker isn't half the writer Abercrombie is.

My point is that describing the series as gritty really does it a disservice as it sets expectations for something like Bakker or Parker or even Martin (Martin's world is darker, I think) which the series simply isn't. It's not all sunshine and lollypops, but it's also not dismembered babies on pitchforks either.

[williamjm]

[quote name='TakLoufer' post='1506210' date='Sep 5 2008, 00.03']I think someone once wrote that The First Law manages to be gritty without the characters doing gritty things. I think this is a more or less accurate assessment. The characters (especially Logen and Glokta) are gritty without being [i]too[/i] hard core about it.[/quote]

Although I do mostly agree with your point I'm not sure I entirely agree with this sentence...

SPOILER: LAOK

Particularly with regard to Logen. True, for most of the series he doesn't actually do anything reprehensible but I'd say his berserker rage in the third book where he kills Tul and Crummock's young son definitely counts as 'gritty' by your definition. I'd also question whether Glotka's torturing (frequently of innocent people) is not gritty, Abercrombie could have had Glotka doing something more evil than what he did but that doesn't stop the things he did do being wrong.

[quote]But before I picked up the series I kept hearing about how gritty it was, but after reading it I see the grittiness is only cosmetic. The main characters all possess moral compasses and have lines they (apparently) won't cross.[/quote]

A novel can be gritty and still have moral characters in it, the two things can co-exist. That said, I'd agree that a review that emphasised how gritty the series was would be a bit misleading. It may be more gritty than some fantasy series but it's definitely not as gritty as quite a few other popular series and I wouldn't say being gritty is a defining characteristic of the series.

I remember a similar thread a while back about people disappointed in [i]The Lies of Locke Lamora[/i] and I think that sometimes the reviews on here and on similar websites can build up expectations a bit too much. I really like both Lynch's and Abercrombie's books and will happily recommend them to people but occasionally some of the hype, particularly for Lynch, was a bit over-the-top. I remember some claims that Lynch was going to be the next major fantasy author and suggesting that tLoLL was a future classic of the genre and although I like the book a lot and think maybe Lynch has the potential to write a truly great fantasy novel one day I don't think he's quite done it yet (I'm not saying the reviewer was necessarily wrong to say what he did because he may have liked tLoLL that much, but I disagree with his opinion). If people are expecting the next ASOIAF from The First Law or Lynch's series (or the Name of the Wind) then they may well be slightly disappointed, even if they read them without any preconceived expectations they might be able to enjoy them for the good books they are. Of course, there's also a simpler explanation for these threads, not everyone likes the same thing and it may not have anything to do with what expectations are - there's no author that seems to be universally loved on this forum.

[PuroGeo]

I loved all three books and I think Abercrombie is one of the best out there. Way better than anything Erikson has ever done and only fantasy authout I have enjoyed more was GRRM.

[Serious Callers Only]

I'm really developing a hatred of the word gritty. Maybe i should post in that thread.

[Ahimsa]

I have only read the first and it wasn't bad. But it wasn't good, either.

I liked the pacing, but it sure seemed like every other fantasy book ever written. There sure was a lot of "telling" with way less "showing." The comparison to Salvatore is pretty spot on. It's the 21st century--if you're going to write an epic fantasy trilogy, at least make it original (though maybe books 2 and 3 are more original).

[williamjm]

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1506241' date='Sep 5 2008, 00.40']I'm really developing a hatred of the word gritty. Maybe i should post in that thread.[/quote]

It is definitely over-used in book reviews. It does seem like just about every major fantasy work of the last decade has had that adjective attached to it.

[quote]I liked the pacing, but it sure seemed like every other fantasy book ever written. There sure was a lot of "telling" with way less "showing." The comparison to Salvatore is pretty spot on. It's the 21st century--if you're going to write an epic fantasy trilogy, at least make it original (though maybe books 2 and 3 are more original).[/quote]

I wouldn't really say the series is particularly original and I suspect originality wasn't Joe's priority when writing it so if you demand originality in your books then maybe the series isn't for you. The second and third books are less generic but it's still a variation on traditional Epic Fantasy rather than something blindingly original. Personally, I don't mind, I wouldn't want every book I read to be a traditional Epic Fantasy but I don't mind reading the occasional series.

[Whiskeyjak]

[quote]I loved all three books and I think Abercrombie is one of the best out there.[/quote]

I'm with him. Rereading the series right now, even

[henderson]

The FIRST LAW trilogy is very good. Almost on par with ASOIAF, but not quite.

1. Malazan Book of the Fallen
2. A Song of Ice and Fire
3. First Law Trilogy (really looking forward to Best Served Cold)
4. Winds of Foreland (underrated)

[dingosatemybaby]

I liked the first two. Haven't read the 3rd one yet.

I think its difficult after reading Martin - one gets spoiled by such high quality. The impulse to compare is hard to resist but if 'he's not Martin' is on the list of cons and stops you from reading someone you might find not much else to read out there.

I think Abercrombie's characters are great, and I liked knowing there were only 3 stories in this arc. Sometimes a light meal is better than a seven course feast, especially if you have to wait 5 years between courses :stunned:

[delete this account pls]

I thought The Blade Itself was good, but it was the next two that really made me fall in love with the series.