The First Law Series (Spoilers included!)

[Nerdanel]

The "go left" trick was done earlier in Miéville's Perdido Street Station. I found it tedious there too. It's definitely a formula of its own and one that grows old quick. Authors don't have to choose between "guaranteed happy endings always and good triumphing every single time with negligible losses" and "guaranteed unhappy endings always and good (or the closest equivalent) failing miserably every single time with tons of suffering that fails to accomplish anything". There is a middle way, you know, and it's more interesting and suspenseful than either. And anyway, a world where evil benefits from clear authorial fiat isn't particularly realistic in my opinion.

For example, Bayaz is an evil bastard. He also isn't nearly as powerful as he used to be. He is the kind of person who will make enemies without particularly trying, and he uses fear to keep living enemies in check. The problem with using fear to suppress hate is that if hate gets the upper hand, enemies will take action against the hated person, and with enough occurrences of such (Bayaz is immortal after all) someone is bound to succeed sooner or later either at direct assassination or at an indirect wrestling of political control. With his waning magical power while nonmagical technology keeps improving, Bayaz is only becoming an easier target. Shoot him, stab him, poison his drink... the possibilities are endless. His mountain hideout does provide safety, but if he wants to stay holed up, his ability to exert his power in the outer world is limited. I wonder if Bayaz is Abercrombie's private Villain Sue or if Bayaz is protected by Abercrombie's desire to write stories in which nothing particularly important happens, since that's the opposite of the traditional epic fantasy way. (Even Perdido Street Station had character development that wasn't there only to be then undone.) Or maybe we have an egregious case of plot stretching going on and Bayaz is going to be killed (of course, only to be replaced by someone even worse) at around Book 25.

I have several issues with The First Law that I have discussed elsewhere. aimlessgun's point about Tolomei is one that I have also raised. Tolomei is a mass of interconnected plot holes, and looks like Abercrombie's plotting and worldbuilding skills weren't good enough to avert that. That kind of thing shows the lack of thought that has gone into the setting. For example, the doors of the house of the Maker seems to function whichever way is the most convenient for the plot. And no, saying "it's magic" is not enough.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, Tolomei's chronic incompetence is only one example of the lack of genuinely strong (as opposed to informed-ability strong) female characters in The First Law.

I remember hearing about Abercrombie saying he tried to show that good and evil depend on the personal viewpoint or something. I disagree with the philosophical idea and don't think anything in The First Law genuinely demonstrates that at all. Bayaz being highly evil doesn't contradict Khalul also being highly evil.

[Shryke]

I think any commentary on the series that flat out describes Bayaz as the villain is being extremely short-sighted in it's reading of the series. Bayaz is certainly a bad guy, in the sense that he's a power-hungry asshole of monumental proportions. But he's not that villain. Not anymore then Khalul, or even Bethod or the fucking Shanka massing in the North.

Saying Abercrombie "did the opposite" and let evil win misses the fucking point. He did the opposite by not having a big evil guy. It's just 2 nasty amoral powers, far greater then any of the characters, duking it out. With everyone caught in the middle. The entire Good vs Evil thing in the book is merely a construct both sides use to fool the people who work for them.

The whole point isn't "evil wins!", it's that the idea of good and evil were pretty meaningless in what's actually going on. The trope Abercrombie is chucking out isn't "Good beats Evil", it's "Good vs Evil". And he doesn't replace it with "Evil vs Evil" (as Nerdanel misinterprets above in his last paragraph), but with just small people caught in a much bigger conflict over which they have little influence.

And I'd be extremely disappointed if Bayaz gets killed just because that's the way these things are supposed to end and not in a way that makes sense given the books that have already come. But I doubt it happens because it's not where any of his books have gone so far and it buys too much into the whole "ultimate evil" thing. Plus, it wouldn't really accomplish much for the world anyway.

[Nerdanel]

I think any commentary on the series that flat out describes Bayaz as the villain is being extremely short-sighted in it's reading of the series. Bayaz is certainly a bad guy, in the sense that he's a power-hungry asshole of monumental proportions. But he's not that villain. Not anymore then Khalul, or even Bethod or the fucking Shanka massing in the North.

If I let out the impression that I think Bayaz is the villain, I apologize, as there are clearly numerous villains in The First Law. However, I think he is the main villain. Khalul never appears onscreen and is less involved with the actual plot than Bayaz, and the likes of Bethod and Sult are small beans compared to either of the two. The Shanka are mere evil minions.

Saying Abercrombie "did the opposite" and let evil win misses the fucking point. He did the opposite by not having a big evil guy. It's just 2 nasty amoral powers, far greater then any of the characters, duking it out. With everyone caught in the middle. The entire Good vs Evil thing in the book is merely a construct both sides use to fool the people who work for them.

It's like how Tolkien has both Sauron AND Saruman, both of which incidentally used propaganda to paint their cause as just and their enemies as monsters... Tolkien does have some actual good guys to oppose them though.

By the way, you're completely missing the real actual Good vs Evil conflicts in the books. Those are things like Glokta and torturing false confessions in service of tyranny vs. doing actual detective work that could upset said tyranny. Evil wins that one. Evil wins big and often in these books.

The whole point isn't "evil wins!", it's that the idea of good and evil were pretty meaningless in what's actually going on. The trope Abercrombie is chucking out isn't "Good beats Evil", it's "Good vs Evil". And he doesn't replace it with "Evil vs Evil" (as Nerdanel misinterprets above in his last paragraph), but with just small people caught in a much bigger conflict over which they have little influence.

The main characters (besides Bayaz) are hardly Peasant Soldier #2348 or Refugee #51792. We have characters just a little below the chief movers and shakers, characters that get to wield not-inconsiderable power of their own, characters that could potentially have effected social change but don't end up doing so.

But in The First Law the main plot is the struggle between Bayaz and Khalul: Evil and Evil. This categorizes the books as a whole as Evil vs Evil. Bethod etc. also being evil is only sugar on the top.

Good and evil are not at all meaningless in the books. Are there any fictional characters that you consider evil if Bayaz doesn't cut it? Do they need to be 100% dedicated to spreading of maximal suffering for its own sake before you call them evil?

And I'd be extremely disappointed if Bayaz gets killed just because that's the way these things are supposed to end and not in a way that makes sense given the books that have already come. But I doubt it happens because it's not where any of his books have gone so far and it buys too much into the whole "ultimate evil" thing. Plus, it wouldn't really accomplish much for the world anyway.

I'm extremely disappointed that Bayaz didn't die, as that is one (possibly the most egregious) aspect of how NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED in the trilogy that was marketed as epic fantasy. The fact that a nihilistic world like Abercrombie's likely wouldn't have improved if Bayaz died is beside the point.

Khalul aside, Bayaz has plenty of credible threats against his life:

- Tolomei jumping from the tower and coming after Bayaz (That this did not happen is in fact a plot hole.)

- Bayaz's heterochromatic apprentice the Eater turning against his master

- Ambitious bankster underlings arranging an assassination

- The other main characters getting a clue and deciding that Bayaz urgently needed killing (Maybe this one's not so credible though since this is Abercrombie we're talking about.)

[aimlessgun]

EDIT: Oh shit Nerdanel wrote an essay just before I put mine up. Apologies to Shryke :frown5:

If you assume Abercrombie is deliberately trying to subvert good vs evil, that doesn't mean he succeeded. You describe Bayaz as 'nasty and amoral'. Let's not mince words. The guy is an evil dude and Abercrombie gave him absolutely no redeeming features. Just because someone doesn't think of themselves as evil, doesn't mean they're not evil. So if Abercrombie was trying to subvert the definition of evil with Bayaz, he failed in my eyes. It appeared to be a clever cloaking of evil that was slowly revealed and finally confirmed utterly in the climax.

As for small people being caught in a big conflict over which they have little influence, that could work, if it actually rang true with the story. But the characters are not little people. Bayaz is just one guy, and they interact with him on a daily basis.

Even if Bayaz sees the Union as his glorified sword, that doesn't mean the characters therein are powerless. It would have been incredibly satisfying, and I think incredibly convincing, if Jezal overcame his cowardice at the end and ordered his troops to flatbow Bayaz in the back while he was leaving the Agriont. As for the other characters, Ferro and Logen basically have superpowers.

And these characters, who are major figures in the world, think about morality and good and evil (well maybe not Ferro so much :laugh: ), so good and evil cannot be meaningless. Maybe if the world as a whole had a different morality system, those concepts would be out of the window. But if there are people in the universe thinking in familiar morality, I will think in those terms as well. A few powerful amoral people will not change that. Powerful amoral people are in tons of stories.

As for Bayaz being killed because it's 'supposed' to happen, I guess that's another thing I disagree with because of perspective. Nerdanel asserts that Bayaz is being kept alive via author fiat: if you base your power on fear, someone is going to overcome it eventually and off you (or least try to off you, nobody even tried that, my god). It's like Bayaz is protected by magical anti-betrayal dust. If Abercrombie had painted him as more of an invincible badass, I might buy it. But he's just a dude with waning powers that pisses everyone off at the end. Actions should have consequences.

[Dr Spoon]

Ok, huge caveat: anything I say about these books needs to be considered in the light that they are, I think, some of the best fantasy for a long time. Maybe not the best, but damn good. That said:

Good point Nerdanel in that the author controls the feel of the book. Say Conan Doyle wants the world of Sherlock Holmes to be a grimmer place. So he says Holmes can't solve the murder and a murderer goes free. World's instantly grimmer - maybe for better or worse, but the author controls that. Likewise Abercrombie holds the reins here. Any author does. Why doesn't Ardee end up as the king's mistress, like Jessica in Dune? Because the ending has to be unhappy.

My feeling is that we're reading too much into this and TFL is one long clever subversion of a cliched fantasy novel. Young man learns wisdom and becomes king, unlikely romance works out, friendly wizard helps good guys win, baddie (Glokta) is redeemed by love/honour/past/someoldbull, warrior who fights well is rewarded with great things (West), crazy man overcomes inner demons - all of these don't happen in TFL and in a cheesy fantasy novel they all would do. However, a story in which two or three of them happened wouldn't be cheesy crap just because they did. "Real life is horrid and thoroughly sucks" is barely more grown up than "everyone marries a beautiful princess". War is Nasty and Kings Get Little Guys Hurt just isn't all that much of a shock to me.

That said, they're very good. If the cynicism felt a little less, er, cynical, they'd be brilliant.

[afterroots]

I think you're mistaking cynicism for realism. IMO all of those 'unhappy' endings were a lot more realistic than their 'happy' ending counter parts.

[Samalander]

As for Bayaz being killed because it's 'supposed' to happen, I guess that's another thing I disagree with because of perspective. Nerdanel asserts that Bayaz is being kept alive via author fiat: if you base your power on fear, someone is going to overcome it eventually and off you (or least try to off you, nobody even tried that, my god). It's like Bayaz is protected by magical anti-betrayal dust. If Abercrombie had painted him as more of an invincible badass, I might buy it. But he's just a dude with waning powers that pisses everyone off at the end. Actions should have consequences.

I disagree. Bayaz bases himself first and foremost on deception. By the time people realize he's an evil son of a bitch, his power is back on the rise, he switches to fear, at which point crossing him seems like a very bad idea (mind you, Ferro might have had a go, but he's just not that high on her list of priorities. She hates him, but he isn't the person she hates the most). Plus, I think he underestimates Glokta, and in him he will find his eventual downfall.

[mormont]

Good point Nerdanel in that the author controls the feel of the book. Say Conan Doyle wants the world of Sherlock Holmes to be a grimmer place. So he says Holmes can't solve the murder and a murderer goes free. World's instantly grimmer - maybe for better or worse, but the author controls that. Likewise Abercrombie holds the reins here. Any author does. Why doesn't Ardee end up as the king's mistress, like Jessica in Dune? Because the ending has to be unhappy.

Frankly, Ardee ending up as Jezal's mistress seems to me to be an unhappier ending for her than winding up married to Glokta. To me, Ardee and Jezal's relationship was not one that was likely to lead to long-term happiness for either of them. It wasn't a great romance, it was a fling between two people who didn't really understand each other. Her marriage to Glokta seems a much more healthy and stable relationship - in its own, screwed-up way.

(Besides, the way I read it, there was still the possibility of an affair between Ardee and Jezal being rekindled. I might be misremembering, though.)

The general point, though, I agree with.

[aimlessgun]

I disagree. Bayaz bases himself first and foremost on deception. By the time people realize he's an evil son of a bitch, his power is back on the rise, he switches to fear, at which point crossing him seems like a very bad idea (mind you, Ferro might have had a go, but he's just not that high on her list of priorities. She hates him, but he isn't the person she hates the most). Plus, I think he underestimates Glokta, and in him he will find his eventual downfall.

Well, I didn't get the impression that Bayaz had spidey-senses or some sort of immunity to weapons (maybe I'm wrong). Every single fight he was in involved talking beforehand so he could see the situation and then blow people up. Is it so implausible for Gorst and some soldiers to flatbow his overconfident ass in the back while he's leaving the Agriont?

I guess that might be expecting too much from Jezal? The character was going in the direction of having a spine and being a good person, so I guess leaving him a coward at the end is a deliberate subversion. It doesn't ring false to me I guess, it could go either way. But considering the total lack of "stand up and cheer" moments in the book, I would have appreciated it going in a good direction :)

[Dr Spoon]

Well, in reality being king's mistress - or most things to do with kings, including being king - would have been a pretty crappy job, but this is a fantasy novel where such stuff is allowed to work out fine (and usually does). My point was really that it would have been the standard, expected end in Cliche Fantasy Novel X for the hero to marry the woman he's been dreaming about - and therefore by the rule of these books it can't be allowed to happen. I thought it was interesting that Abercrombie mentioned democracy and peasants rebelling (although they do get a good smacking for it, the dumb little optimistic schmucks), as the crappy life of the average man is usually ignored so long as a fairly nice guy is on the throne.

I thought about this and on balance I did mean cynicism, not realism. I know characters and the setting have to be consistent, but the characters are all so exceptional by powers or by position that it's hard to get a grip on what would be realistic for them in their world. It's like setting a story where the main characters are a vampire, a billionaire and a navy seal. What would be normal for them? (Not that this is a bad thing in tiself - it's just that many fantasy characters are "high-level" in some way). It wouldn't be cynical to write a story where a 21st century guy lost a fight to a bigger guy. But in a story where he was a wizard, a master swordsman or whatever, it might be.

Personally I think TFL should get credit much more for the quality of the characters and the writing than it's overall "feel".

[Mykle]

I loved this series. It brought me back to fantasy literature. I kind of like the idea that the whole thing is not tied up in a nice neat package at the end. I am also really looking forward to the next 5 books.

[Samalander]

Well, I didn't get the impression that Bayaz had spidey-senses or some sort of immunity to weapons (maybe I'm wrong). Every single fight he was in involved talking beforehand so he could see the situation and then blow people up. Is it so implausible for Gorst and some soldiers to flatbow his overconfident ass in the back while he's leaving the Agriont?

Most of the series we see him pretty much down in the dumps, his will alone preventing him from ending up as a sad example like all the other Magi. By the end of the series he manages to literally rejuvenate himself. Who knows what he's capable of now (remember, the guy has been around for a very long time. If putting an arrow in him was enough to finish him off, it would have been done by now).

[SkynJay]

It seems to me Ardee and Gloka DO end up with the happiest ending of the series, Gloka with someone who seems to care, and Ardee feeling usefull for the first time ever. Plus, Ardee's happiest moments are not with Luthar, who she admits she never liked, but spent laughing along with Gloka.

I also think the book actually ends on a note of hope, because we see Logan on the same fall that started the whole series.

[aimlessgun]

Well, I guess the endings for Glotka and Logan would make you smile if you liked those characters :D

Some of us though had these thoughts on the matter...

[Grack21]

Well, I guess the endings for Glotka and Logan would make you smile if you liked those characters :D

Some of us though had these thoughts on the matter...

Well played, sir. Well played.

[Shryke]

Most of the series we see him pretty much down in the dumps, his will alone preventing him from ending up as a sad example like all the other Magi. By the end of the series he manages to literally rejuvenate himself. Who knows what he's capable of now (remember, the guy has been around for a very long time. If putting an arrow in him was enough to finish him off, it would have been done by now).

He's not really down in the dumps though. Remember, he was still the Bank all along. He was still pulling the strings on 90% of stuff.

The only thing that's down for him at the start is:

a ) magic is on the decline. With his resistance to breaking the second law (by too much anyway), he's at a disadvantage. Hence the quest.

b ) he miscalculated and took to long to take a direct hand in matters. As he say sat the end, he lost track of time.

But he's never close to out. He's simply a bit behind in the game. Though by the end, he's reestablished his dominance of the Union, crushed Kahlul's army and reinvigorated his magical abilities somewhat, so he's certainly better off.

[Shryke]

If I let out the impression that I think Bayaz is the villain, I apologize, as there are clearly numerous villains in The First Law. However, I think he is the main villain. Khalul never appears onscreen and is less involved with the actual plot than Bayaz, and the likes of Bethod and Sult are small beans compared to either of the two. The Shanka are mere evil minions.

Pfft. Khalul's the "villain" that sets everything in motion. He's the one that destroys cities, eats people and is responsible for most of the people getting killed in the whole series.

Bayaz, if one wants to be overly charitable, is the good guy who just happens to be extremely win-at-any-cost.

Or, you know, neither is that good. Neither is a main villain.

By the way, you're completely missing the real actual Good vs Evil conflicts in the books. Those are things like Glokta and torturing false confessions in service of tyranny vs. doing actual detective work that could upset said tyranny. Evil wins that one. Evil wins big and often in these books.

The main characters (besides Bayaz) are hardly Peasant Soldier #2348 or Refugee #51792. We have characters just a little below the chief movers and shakers, characters that get to wield not-inconsiderable power of their own, characters that could potentially have effected social change but don't end up doing so.

But in The First Law the main plot is the struggle between Bayaz and Khalul: Evil and Evil. This categorizes the books as a whole as Evil vs Evil. Bethod etc. also being evil is only sugar on the top.

Good and evil are not at all meaningless in the books. Are there any fictional characters that you consider evil if Bayaz doesn't cut it? Do they need to be 100% dedicated to spreading of maximal suffering for its own sake before you call them evil?

I didn't say Good and Evil were meaningless, I said Good VS Evil was meaningless. The whole point is that this kind of construction is not relevant. There's 2 largely amoral sides and everyone else is caught between them. And the point of the reversal in the series is that unlike the typical "Evil vs Evil" conflict to which you refer (which is actually just Good vs 2-Evils-that-don't-get-along), in the end the little guys don't show up the big evils. They get shoved back in line because they just aren't powerful enough.

And the characters are not "just below" the movers and shakers. They certainly influenced the outcomes in the series to some degree, but not to any fundamental degree. (That's where the "nothing happened" complaints come from.) In the face of the conflict that defines and animates the events in the series, they ultimately don't matter. They aren't in any position to change it and this is hammered home multiple times to these characters.

Glokta's work isn't good detective work vs evil torturing, it's just meaningless. He does what he's told and he steps in line with Bayaz's plans in the end every time.

I'm extremely disappointed that Bayaz didn't die, as that is one (possibly the most egregious) aspect of how NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED in the trilogy that was marketed as epic fantasy. The fact that a nihilistic world like Abercrombie's likely wouldn't have improved if Bayaz died is beside the point.

Khalul aside, Bayaz has plenty of credible threats against his life:

- Tolomei jumping from the tower and coming after Bayaz (That this did not happen is in fact a plot hole.)

- Bayaz's heterochromatic apprentice the Eater turning against his master

- Ambitious bankster underlings arranging an assassination

- The other main characters getting a clue and deciding that Bayaz urgently needed killing (Maybe this one's not so credible though since this is Abercrombie we're talking about.)

Bayaz dying would have ruined the entire ending. You are still buying into this "Good vs Evil" dicotomy. Alot happens in the series. It's just there's not alot of positive progress for the protagonists. Which is what irks so many people (as seen recently in the "disappointing endings" thread). Alot of stuff has changed by the end. It's just that nothing about the actual conflict going on has changed because none of the protagonists are big enough powers to shape that defining conflict. They are all same different sized fish at the mercy of sharks.

Ultimately, the series succeeds because it DOESN'T do any of what you are suggesting. It doesn't wrap everything up nicely and morally, with good triumphing over evil or with evil triumphing over good. It ends with both major powers going back to lick their wounds, neither being really all that "good" in any sense, and with the rest of the characters left with no uncertainty as to their irrelevance in the larger scheme of things.

What it goes against isn't good winning, it's the characters being important or powerful. Their conception (that we, the reader inherent) of their good against these other guys evil is irrelevant because they lack the power to do anything with it.=.

[aimlessgun]

Well, I stated it before, but just once more for the record: the characters as presented did not appear powerless, at all (to me, my subjective impression). So in the end when they didn't do anything, it didn't ring true for me. Until someone proves to me that Bayaz is surrounded by magical wards at all time, or has spider senses, I will continue to believe that Glotka or Jezal could have killed him had they so desired, and I felt they should have desired it, to the point of overcoming their fear.

[Maithanet]

Well, I stated it before, but just once more for the record: the characters as presented did not appear powerless, at all (to me, my subjective impression). So in the end when they didn't do anything, it didn't ring true for me. Until someone proves to me that Bayaz is surrounded by magical wards at all time, or has spider senses, I will continue to believe that Glotka or Jezal could have killed him had they so desired, and I felt they should have desired it, to the point of overcoming their fear.

It is difficult to pin down how well protected Bayaz is. He certainly nearly died in book 2-a single eater would have gotten the best of him in his weakened state. However, we have to assume that those were extenuating circumstances and that normally he is better protected.

Do we see anything from Bayaz to indicate that he has some sort of ward against poison or arrows? No, we do not. However, Bayaz plays things very, very close to the chest. We never get his real thoughts on much of anything, and if he had any protections, he would be very stupid to let anyone know about them. Even a man as boastful as he wouldn't brag about surviving poison; it is better to gloat after the poisoner has failed [see Best Served Cold].

I personally doubt that if Jezal had the courage to stab Bayaz in the back with a poisoned dagger that it would work. Just a hunch.

And even if it could work, why would Jezal or Glotka do that? Both would face swift vengance from Sulfur. And then the Union would have to face the monstrosity of the Gurkish Empire without Bayaz to guide them. How long before a new set of eaters start making their lunch in Adua?

[Shryke]

Well, I stated it before, but just once more for the record: the characters as presented did not appear powerless, at all (to me, my subjective impression). So in the end when they didn't do anything, it didn't ring true for me. Until someone proves to me that Bayaz is surrounded by magical wards at all time, or has spider senses, I will continue to believe that Glotka or Jezal could have killed him had they so desired, and I felt they should have desired it, to the point of overcoming their fear.

Their very lack of action proves their powerlessness. The ending doesn't ring true because you are not accepting what it is telling you.

Jezal doesn't even try because Bayaz broke him. And notably, Bayaz only does this when he's in a position to do so without consequence. Same with Glokta. He only does his reveals at the end because he's solidified his power and isn't in any danger from them any longer.

Bayaz, as Maithanet says, plays it very close to the chest. It's not until he can't be stopped that he reveals to anyone that there's a reason to stop him. When you consider whether these characters could have killed him, you have to consider whether they even knew they should at the time they could have.