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

[Ran]

I think Isis meant that it's pretty sad to not have any literature to look forward to if one series has made it impossible to really enjoy anything else. There really is quite a lot of great work out there besides GRRM. :)

[Slynt]

There's a lot of stuff out there, obviously, but I haven't found a book yet that satisfies me as completely as ASOIAF - GRRM's series has it all, everything that appeals to me I find within the four books released so far, it completely changed how I play roleplaying games, how I think about writing, how I feel about [medieval] history etc.

Can you give me a few examples of books that simply make you a die-hard fan by their sheer appeal? Or do you suggest there are worthwhile reads while waiting for A Dance with Dragons? Cause that is what The First Law is to me - worthwhile, but not GRRM. :)

[Bolton Bastard]

I enjoyed it for a good "snack read". The part that really got me going though was the ending. And I can say I was actually surprised by parts of it. I love ASOIAF, but I can't say anything really surprised me.

But I picked up The First Law with very little outside influence other than than one person saying it was good, so I wasn't expecting a monumental work that would redefine fantasy. I can say I got what I expected with the first two books, some pleasant stock characters and good action. Then the third book came out and I really enjoyed the dark ending. Really, for a book with the standard immortal main characters it ends on such a pleasant twisted note for each of them. (Anyone else think Ferro's ending was great? hehe, voices).

I can see how people dislike the books, it's style is very simplistic, the starting characters seem to come out of a good game of DnD, he goes into more detail on battles and fights than anything else, his quotes are repetitive, and the ending is bleak. But, I personally enjoyed the book and find myself reading some of the sections over again, like Glotka's confrontation of the queen.

[AndrewJ]

[quote name='Ran' post='1553694' date='Oct 13 2008, 17.11']There really is quite a lot of great work out there besides GRRM. :)[/quote]

I haven't been able to find any of it. And I really have been looking. There's plenty of "good" (including First Law), but I haven't been able to uncover the "great". Nothing in the past decade or two measures up to GRRM, IMHO.

[polishgenius]

It really is a matter of perspective. You get a lot of people saying the same (in varying degrees) about Erikson, Mieville, Pratchett... hell, you get the same from Goodkind fans. It's as much a matter of something appealing to your particular tastes as of quality (not saying that quality doesn't come into it, because it obviously does, but it's the appeal of factors to you personally that makes the difference between 'good' and 'I hope I get this feeling from a book again sometime'.

[Myrddin]

I haven't read Joe yet (though he is on my list). I'm also someone who doesn't post if I read a book I was lukewarm about. Unless I feel strongly about a position, I can't be bothered about posting a critique about it. Lynch was someone I was ok with. THe story wasn't very engaging to me, but the characters were quite funny and scams inventive. That's probably the mot I wrote about my response to Lies.

I do think that the presence of the author tones me down even more though. Don't get me wrong. I'm not awe struck or anything, but seeing that I hope to be a professional author in the future, I consider it a professional courtesy not to slag off someone else's work in public. Who knows. I might be sharing an agent, publisher or table at a panel with that person someday (/wakes up from day dreaming).


Case in point, there was a debut novel here a few years ago with a glowing review by a boarder. I went to the author's website and read the prologue. It was pretty bad, in my opinion. About everything I hate to read and avoid in my writing. I asked if the prologue was representative of the entire book's level of prose, and recieved a resounding Yes! It's awesome! Then the author showed up to plug his work, so I quietly let my comment go. He was a new and excited author and I wished him the best. I didn't want to piss on his opportunity (one I hope to have) and say I thought the writing was poor. I may not be a target reader for him, and I didn't want to damper whatever sales he might gain. Getting exposure is hard enough.

SO, these are my partiually selfish reasons for not posting negative book reviews. :)

[Muttering Bill]

[quote name='Myrddin' post='1555154' date='Oct 14 2008, 11.49']I do think that the presence of the author tones me down even more though. Don't get me wrong. I'm not awe struck or anything, but seeing that I hope to be a professional author in the future, I consider it a professional courtesy not to slag off someone else's work in public. Who knows. I might be sharing an agent, publisher or table at a panel with that person someday (/wakes up from day dreaming).[/quote]
Psst... they'll never know it was you mouthing off about their lousy books. Unless your real name is Myrddin, which I should think it is not.

[quote name='Myrddin' post='1555154' date='Oct 14 2008, 11.49']He was a new and excited author and I wished him the best. I didn't want to piss on his opportunity (one I hope to have) and say I thought the writing was poor. I may not be a target reader for him, and I didn't want to damper whatever sales he might gain. Getting exposure is hard enough.[/quote]
I get what you mean though. It is a big deal and good for them for getting published. But I also think that that's why we should give more attention in "reviewing" books that we didn't like. Not to the purpose of being mean about it. It would be better to elaborate on why we didn't like them instead of just a one-off comment that it wasn't that good. A guick explanation of why you didn't like it is not necessarily going to cost an author sales - it will put word out that it wasn't for you, yes, but then someone else may see your comments and think "Hey, I like all those things that he was complaining about, maybe I should check this one out." (I know I've said that myself on a few occasions.) Unless you're saying that you don't mention it at all, then the book might drop futher into obscurity.

But to tie this back in with [i]The First Law[/i]: I don't think Joe is a bad writer. But, imo, he told a very mediocre story (with a good ending).

[Myrddin]

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1555223' date='Oct 14 2008, 10.40']Psst... they'll never know it was you mouthing off about their lousy books. Unless your real name is Myrddin, which I should think it is not.[/quote]

/points to link in sig to his blog where his real name is revealed when used with a special magic marker*







*Author not responsible for monitors being defaced, marred, or otherwise ruined with rainbow squiggles and marks

[Sword of Funny]

I just finished this trilogy. Do I think it was overrated? I don't know, are people saying this series is really groundbreaking, spectacular stuff? Because if they are, then yes, it is overrated. I guess the best thing I can say about it is that it is easy to read. Mindless and fast-moving. I didn't find it as painful as Erikson, another favorite on these forums. There are plenty of boring chapters, but fortunately usually they are only a few pages long and right away you are onto the next character.

I guess my main problem with the books are the characters. They seem totally unable to act in such a way that would go against a very thin, two dimensional conception of them. They quickly grew frustrating to read. I mentioned boring chapters above, and I think I found them boring because there are many, many chapters that are based on internal monologues or small character interactions that only serve to reinforce that yes, the character is exactly who you thought they were a book or two ago. Each character has catch phrases that are repeated ad nauseum. It's really saying something when I feel like a character needs to be killed off, not because they are unlikable (that is beside the point), but that they are just trapped by their own definitions, their capacity for surprise is nonexistant. They struck me as caracatures, rather than characters.

The plot seems like a flimsy excuse to stage enough battles, torture, and sex scenes throughout each book to keep the reader's various lusts satiated.

ASoIaF it is not. If you're looking for something that satisfies on multiple levels, I'd recommend Bakker's books. I actually have higher hopes for the rest of those books than I do for ASoIaF.

[Argonath Diver]

I flew through LAOK in one day. I was admittedly surprised with some of the events - I guessed about half of the character arcs more-or-less, but certainly didn't expect some things. All in all I enjoyed it, but not as much as many people on this board.

SPOILER: LAOK

I guess I am one of those readers who wants a happy ending. At least, in this case, I expected, say, one happy ending and two or three 'bad' ones. In TBI, I finished it and thought "Oh, okay, all these bad-people main characters are going to unite and greater good and yadda yadda, and by the end they'll all be just super! Except one who dies. Then after BTAH, I expected maybe just Logan or Ferro to get their transformation to a flawed-but-good-guy thing, and maybe Glokta and Jezal having an honorable death or two. So LAOK definitely threw me for a loop, when by the end the most sympathetic (for me, anyway) character left - West - is physically ruined and probably will never be happy, always Furious. Couldn't Joe have thrown me a bone, and had West fall for that rich cousin and be a hero? Argh. Just one little thing to hold on to among all these asshole characters.

Anyway, I'll be reading Best Served Cold, but I will always prefer a happy ending over a gritty, or realistic, or whatever word y'all want to toss out for this finale. I'd describe it as 'brutal'. Maybe not some trite Eddings one where every character is just super duper, but at least somethin' a bit sentimental. It is relatively similar to people's feelings on Hobb's work. The first trilogy ends on a bummer note, the Fool's Fate trilogy mostly fixes things up, and I seem to have heard a ton of people on this board who were upset that it's rather sentimental for Fitz, and not, well, pretty emo like the first one. I personally liked that this very flawed character gets shit on through six books, by himself and others, but finally is happy in the end.



Edit: Added minor point:
I wanted to say that these are my favorite covers of any series, by the way. I loved when I first saw LAOK, saw the cover and realized that all three got continually more scarred, burned, and torn, and thought "Well I guess the shit is certainly going to hit the fan in this one!"

[TakLoufer]

The characters who made the worst caracatures were the nobility. The prince had to be a total buffoon and the generals unbelievably childish. It reminded me of something out of Black Adder (Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent comes to mind) or Monty Python or something. Not [i]all[/i] aristorcrats, or even [i]most[/i], have to be upper class twits.

BTW, love the sig, Misanthropic Thunder.