The First Law Series (Spoilers included!)

[SkiesOfAzel]

Interesting conversation :). My own opinion on the trilogy is very mixed. The author juggled with some interesting and controversial ideas and themes and i though he handled them surprisingly well:

How no one gets what he deserves in real life, that good or evil is a matter of perspective, that morality always favors the victor, how history usually becomes a tool for manipulation, and how money is what really makes the world go round.

I even thought the end was appropriate, but i didn't like the way it was executed. In general i though the characters were great but very inconsistent, and the character development was dictated by the direction of the plot and not the other way around. While reading the books i got the impression that the author had a fixed beginning and a fixed ending in his mind, and he was constantly trying to connect the dots between those two. This wasn't so obvious with Glocta, Ferro and other characters that didn't change much if at all throughout the books, but it was annoyingly evident with Logen and Jezal. Jezal's character especially was constantly going back and forth according to the needs of the script but without any meaningful justification.

As for whatever the characters were powerless or not to change the outcome of the books, i'd say that they weren't. During the story, most characters made some important decisions that could completely alter the way the story ended. West could have let the Prince live, but this could have bad consequences for himself. Glocta had 2 opportunities to end the war between the Gurkish Empire and the Union (by surrendering Dagoska and by making it clear that the Gurkish ambassador wasn't responsible for the murder of the Prince) saving countless lives in the process but he preferred to protect his own hide instead. Jezal could have refused the promotion to Major after returning to the Union (a few minutes ago he wanted to quit the army) and got married with Ardee, and latter he could have surrendered the city instead of listening to his pride and declaring war to the Gurkish. Logen could have swallowed his pride and try to make things work with Ferro, could have stayed away from the North, and he could have refused the crown, in every case he took the easy way out. These are just a few examples of the many selfish choices that led to the final outcome. Bayaz is certainly powerful but he relies on others to execute his grand scheme. If anyone of those had chosen to do the right thing, Bayaze's plan would probably not have worked that great, and allot less people would have suffered.

Now, about Bayaz and Khalul, the impression i got is that they are both villains. They certainly don't see themselves that way, but they both use their subjects as cattle to be sacrificed in their games and that's not just amoral, that's immoral (tyranny usually is anyway).

[Maithanet]

As for whatever the characters were powerless or not to change the outcome of the books, i'd say that they weren't. During the story, most characters made some important decisions that could completely alter the way the story ended. West could have let the Prince live, but this could have bad consequences for himself.

Why would that have made a difference? Bayaz intended to put his chosen man on the throne (be it Jezal or someone else), and that means that Ladisla had to go. He wouldn't make too much difference in Sulfur's belly.

Glocta had 2 opportunities to end the war between the Gurkish Empire and the Union (by surrendering Dagoska and by making it clear that the Gurkish ambassador wasn't responsible for the murder of the Prince) saving countless lives in the process but he preferred to protect his own hide instead.

The Gurkish were ready to have hostilities cool (for the time being) with the Union once they had Dagoska. Bayaz did not want that, and so he organized the murder of the Prince to make sure the war continued. I don't see how Glotka could have stopped the war with either of the things you mentioned. Whether Dagoska was taken a few months earlier would have made no difference in the overall war. And if he'd proclaimed that the ambassador was innocent, what proof would he offer? Who would listen? Why would anyone be convinced? How long would he live before Sult/Bayaz shut him up for good?

Jezal could have refused the promotion to Major after returning to the Union (a few minutes ago he wanted to quit the army) and got married with Ardee, and latter he could have surrendered the city instead of listening to his pride and declaring war to the Gurkish.

Yeah, but Bayaz had other potential kings in waiting. And if Jezal had shown any sign of surrendering the city, Bayaz could have given him the force-choke. Or just blown him up and blamed it on Gurkish magic.

Logen could have swallowed his pride and try to make things work with Ferro, could have stayed away from the North, and he could have refused the crown, in every case he took the easy way out.

I agree, Logen made his own choices, and could have had a very different ending. But he didn't, that was sort of central to who he was as a person. YMMV, but I thought the arc was great, (my favorite of the books).

These are just a few examples of the many selfish choices that led to the final outcome. Bayaz is certainly powerful but he relies on others to execute his grand scheme. If anyone of those had chosen to do the right thing, Bayaze's plan would probably not have worked that great, and allot less people would have suffered.

I agree, Bayaz operates by using others. I agree that if everyone inexplicably opposed him at every turn, it would have been a big problem for Bayaz. But why would they do that? He made sure to have his hooks into people before he relied on them for anything serious. The bank, his office and his magic give him a great deal of leverage in virtually any situation.

Sorry if this comes across as confrontational, that is not my intention. I just think you are describing the characters as having more agency than they did.

[SkiesOfAzel]

No need to apologize, you certainly don't come across as confrontational and besides, if i wanted to hear my own opinions i would just repeat them to myself, i wouldn't post them here ;). I posted because i was interested in others opinions and points of view so i am glad you answered my post.

Why would that have made a difference? Bayaz intended to put his chosen man on the throne (be it Jezal or someone else), and that means that Ladisla had to go. He wouldn't make too much difference in Sulfur's belly.

Well, i will agree that he could get rid of Prince Charming latter but as long as he was up in the North he was hard to reach, so if he had returned alive to the Union after the war he would have introduced delays in Bayaze's plan, and his plan relied on timing to work. After all i am almost certain he sent him there to die.

The Gurkish were ready to have hostilities cool (for the time being) with the Union once they had Dagoska. Bayaz did not want that, and so he organized the murder of the Prince to make sure the war continued. I don't see how Glotka could have stopped the war with either of the things you mentioned. Whether Dagoska was taken a few months earlier would have made no difference in the overall war. And if he'd proclaimed that the ambassador was innocent, what proof would he offer? Who would listen? Why would anyone be convinced? How long would he live before Sult/Bayaz shut him up for good?

You are right, surrendering Dagoska would not have stopped the war, it would serve to save allot of lives (which is beside the point here anyway) and it would also allow the Gurkish forces to mobilize faster against the Union and get them with their pants down. That's why Bayaz tried to delay Dagoska's fall as much as he could. Now about the murder of the Gurkish ambassador, he didn't find convincing proof because he didn't search for any, as soon as the Bank lackey threatened him he stopped looking. I do have to say that Glocta's actions were perfectly in character though, and i just mentioned them to add them to the general picture of choices and consequences.

Yeah, but Bayaz had other potential kings in waiting. And if Jezal had shown any sign of surrendering the city, Bayaz could have given him the force-choke. Or just blown him up and blamed it on Gurkish magic.

I am not so sure about that, this was the make or break point of his plan IMO. Jezal was at the gates negotiating a surrender in front of many, many witnesses. He only had to accept the terms of the ambassador and Bayaz was history. Sure Bayaz could try the Darth Vaider trick as soon as he heard Jezal surrendering the city if he was fast enough, but there is no guarantee that everyone would believe him (his hide was in danger and everyone knew it) and something like this could also create allot of chaos that would allow the Gurkish to invade then and there, to capture/kill Bayaz on the spot or any other unforeseen consequence that could make things go south for him.

I agree, Logen made his own choices, and could have had a very different ending. But he didn't, that was sort of central to who he was as a person. YMMV, but I thought the arc was great, (my favorite of the books).

Well, i dunno, he seemed humble and patient throughout the first book and the trip to the end of the world and then suddenly he reverted and let Ferro go. Then he went up North and he reverted some more. Don't get me wrong, he was an interesting character i just felt that his actions were a little forced, not as much as in Jazel's case, but still...

I agree, Bayaz operates by using others. I agree that if everyone inexplicably opposed him at every turn, it would have been a big problem for Bayaz. But why would they do that? He made sure to have his hooks into people before he relied on them for anything serious. The bank, his office and his magic give him a great deal of leverage in virtually any situation.

Yes, i totally agree, he had everyone hooked nice and tight but they still had a choice, and choice is power, even if it's a difficult choice to make. I am not saying that it was easy (or even logical some of the times) for those characters to do the right thing, i am saying that none of them did, and i felt that this was a point that the author was trying to make about human nature.

[aimlessgun]

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.

Jezal had been growing as a character and developing a spine. Glotka had finally shown a willingness to betray his superiors and act on his own.

Now here's the thing: Bayaz is never in a position where he can't be stopped. His power is never secure in the book because he is never personally secure. That is my point. He appears incredibly easy to kill at any time via a flatbow sniper while he's just walking around the Agriont with no protection. Who cares about his money or his bank or any of that crap? Once he's dead, none of them will avenge him. Actually

.

But I will admit that it bothers me mostly because that's what I wanted to happen. I truly believe that Jezal or Glotka could have acted and stayed true to their characters, but their inaction is also plausible.

[SkynJay]

On Logan. We see in his arc that although i WANTS to be a good person, he isn't really willing to go through all the steps to become one. He takes one step foward, two steps back if you will. He knows the Bloody-nines persona, but wont leave situations that would contain him.

Jezel becomes a better person through the series, but i felt he always remained a coward. Maybe a caring coward rather than an arrogant one, but a coward.

And it is hard to read the war itself. It seems Bayaz is the truest villain, the one who started it all in motion. But the prophet decided that the only way to beat a villain was to be come one himself. Neither has a care for any life outside of their war by the time the novels timeline.

[SkiesOfAzel]

On Logan. We see in his arc that although i WANTS to be a good person, he isn't really willing to go through all the steps to become one. He takes one step foward, two steps back if you will. He knows the Bloody-nines persona, but wont leave situations that would contain him.

I understand that this is what the author was trying to convey, i just think it wasn't presented in a realistic way. I also think he relied to much on the Bloody-Nine persona to dramatize the character instead of using subtler and more realistic ways to flesh him out.

Jezel becomes a better person through the series, but i felt he always remained a coward. Maybe a caring coward rather than an arrogant one, but a coward.

I have several problems with Jezal's character, not the least of them is the completely inconsistent way he handles fear. He puts his life on the line to save Logen and Ferro from falling when the flatheads are chasing them and latter while the Union is attacked by the Gurkish he charges to defend a breach in the wall of the city, these are not the actions of a coward. I can understand his reaction when Bayaz went Darth Veider on him, most people would react exactly the same way, but the pathetic way he begged Glocta to reassure Bayaz that he remained his faithful dog was extreme and completely over the top, or at least that's how it seemed to me.

[Maithanet]

Well, i will agree that he could get rid of Prince Charming latter but as long as he was up in the North he was hard to reach, so if he had returned alive to the Union after the war he would have introduced delays in Bayaze's plan, and his plan relied on timing to work. After all i am almost certain he sent him there to die.

I just assumed that Bayaz has agents still in the North. He was living there after all. If he needed the prince dead (and its not like Ladisla was well protected), I think it would have happened, West or no.

You are right, surrendering Dagoska would not have stopped the war, it would serve to save allot of lives (which is beside the point here anyway) and it would also allow the Gurkish forces to mobilize faster against the Union and get them with their pants down. That's why Bayaz tried to delay Dagoska's fall as much as he could. Now about the murder of the Gurkish ambassador, he didn't find convincing proof because he didn't search for any, as soon as the Bank lackey threatened him he stopped looking. I do have to say that Glocta's actions were perfectly in character though, and i just mentioned them to add them to the general picture of choices and consequences.

I figured Bayaz wanted to stick it to the Gurkish however possible. Plus, lending the money to Glokta gained him a valuable agent.

I'm still skeptical that Glokta could have done anything about the king's murder. If he already knew that his agents were doublecrossing him, then he could maybe have acted with some limited lattitude, but at that time, if he'd made even a single investigation after Valint&Balk asked him not to, and I think he would have ended up as a body found floating by the docks.

I am not so sure about that, this was the make or break point of his plan IMO. Jezal was at the gates negotiating a surrender in front of many, many witnesses. He only had to accept the terms of the ambassador and Bayaz was history. Sure Bayaz could try the Darth Vaider trick as soon as he heard Jezal surrendering the city if he was fast enough, but there is no guarantee that everyone would believe him (his hide was in danger and everyone knew it) and something like this could also create allot of chaos that would allow the Gurkish to invade then and there, to capture/kill Bayaz on the spot or any other unforeseen consequence that could make things go south for him.

Well Bayaz said himself that he picked Jezal because he was a coward. If he had any inkling that Jezal was going to betray him, then he wouldn't have allowed the king to speak to the emissary at all. You are assuming that Jezal (a terrible liar outside the poker table) could deceive Bayaz, which I doubt.

Well, i dunno, he seemed humble and patient throughout the first book and the trip to the end of the world and then suddenly he reverted and let Ferro go. Then he went up North and he reverted some more. Don't get me wrong, he was an interesting character i just felt that his actions were a little forced, not as much as in Jazel's case, but still...

I'd say Logen was trying to be the good man, but he just couldn't. Because the only thing he was good at and the only thing he could rely on in life was violence. Even when he was "turning over a new leaf" what was he doing? Acting as a sellsword for the sake of Bayaz. Hardly a peaceful profession. How many men did he kill in book 1? I can think of at least seven, and probably more like ten. In book 2? At least five more, and I might be forgetting a battle. And that's not counting Shanka.

Logen made a small step towards being a better man early in the series. But he couldn't pull it off, and regressed. You have to be realistic about these sorts of things.

Yes, i totally agree, he had everyone hooked nice and tight but they still had a choice, and choice is power, even if it's a difficult choice to make. I am not saying that it was easy (or even logical some of the times) for those characters to do the right thing, i am saying that none of them did, and i felt that this was a point that the author was trying to make about human nature.

I guess I would just question what you mean by "the right thing". It's not like this is a black and white world.

Would it have been right for Jezal to surrender the city to the Gurkish and hand over Bayaz? It would have been better for them in the short term, but subservience to an empire led by a cult of cannibalistic supersoldiers sounds like something to be avoided virtually at all costs.

Would it have been right for Glotka to get himself killed to investigate the King's murder? Maybe, but again I can't see what that would accomplish other that swift death.

Could Glokta begin a secret war against Bayaz from his position atop the High Inquisition? Yes. But starting another war is hardly what Adua needs right now, and I think that Bayaz's intelligence network is second to none.

So, basically it seems to me that while characters could have taken another action, I can't come up with a time when I felt like Abercrombie was railroading people towards where he wanted them to go. The characters were faced with hard choices, and they made their decisions. Bayaz relies on people's greed, self interest and fear to keep them from actively opposing him. And if they start working against them, well he has plenty of ways to deal with that too.

[trio]

On a completely different note, I spent the whole series trying to figure out Glokta's injuries. And failing.

Why does he have to piss sitting down? Why is he faecally incontinent at night? What the hell did they do to him to cause that stuff??

I couldn't help wondering if Joe had done any research into specific injuries that genuinely cause such distressing effects or if he threw the details in to make the reader deliciously squicked out!

[Starkess]

I'd imagine that the various torture techniques they used pretty much wrecked his body. Although I hate to think about it, any opening probably represents an opportunity for a torturer, and after however many years with them, I think his injuries are totally plausible. In fact I think the more amazing thing is that he can even function as well as he can.

[kungtotte]

He can barely stand most of the time, because of intense pain and weakness in his crippled leg. He probably has significant nerve damage in his leg and hip that prevents him from pissing unless he relaxes his body by sitting down. And even if that's not true, would you stand to take a piss when you can't put any weight on one of your legs? That's an accident waiting to happen if I ever saw one.

As for the faecal incontinence, it's probably just a matter of conscious control of his body. When he's awake he can clench whatever it is that needs clenching, but when he goes to bed and his body relaxes it also unclenches. With stinky results.

[trio]

I do remember some line about how you never really think about the er.."taint" until it's gone. Then you think about it all the time...

Me: "WTF??!!"

It was obvious the torturers had messed around with him down below, and I didn't really care until the end of the seies, as he'd shown no interest in women. So if it was ambiguous whether he was just incontinent or um....worse....., it affected no-one but himself. But then with his marriage...I just felt sad for Ardee if that was the case. Cos she was such a sexual person & obviously would have done him without much pause.

I ended up liking her towards the end - and I wouldn't like her imprisoned in a joke of a marriage for the rest of her life. She'd be back on the booze inside a year!

[Dr Spoon]

My own take on this is that the story ended the way it did because it's just that sort of book. It's like the way in a tough crime story the villain wouldn't promise to be a better person and say sorry and the private eye wouldn't end up happy and rich. Even if the story seemed to be going in that direction, it would have to be diverted to give it an unhappy ending. I suppose what I mean is that the overall feel of the books (basically, that the deeper the cynicism the more it's justified) determined the end much more than the actions of the characters.

[Jo498]

Many interesting remarks. Just a few impressions of my own (not going to deep with respect to character development)

+ they are real page turners, entertaining and often funny

+ there are some interesting twist as have been discussed

+ some parts of the world/culture are well done and fairly original

- it gets very repetitive: I do not want to be told for the umpteenth time that Glokta's leg hurts adn that he can only eat porridge and that Dogman feels like he needed to take a piss real bad.

- even the extended swordfights get boring, because it's always more of the same, just a little gorier. Quite a few of those fights don't serve the plot in any way (e.g. when Logen kills a bunch of archers all on his own by waiting in the dark until they are asleep)

- He relies overall way to much on gore and grossness (Eaters, yuck) and overlong fights

- The world is not really convincing and clicheed, IMO, and not differentiated. Logen can read and wears buttoned shirts, some Barbarian...

- Too many of the supporting cast are just caricatures, like the two bickering Generals

- the fool's errand on the other continent was rather boring (about as bad as Brienne's in AFFC, for the latter we may hope that it served some purpose we do not know yet)

- That the Seed has side-effects like radioactive fallour was also silly

But what I disliked most from a critical distance (it didn't spoil the fun while reading all that much) is the following:

The two main elements don't really fit together at all: gritty realism, cool, brutal cynical barbarian and inquisitor vs. demi-god-like millenia old mages straight from the mythology. Very low and very high fantasy don't make a convincing alliance. (I found it already rather stupid in the Lord of Rings (and I adore Tolkiens mythopoiesis and depth) that Elronds father was a mythical being that was put on the night skies... but that's not supposed to be gritty and realistic) Millenia old magical monster like the Feared don't really fit as well (and why did he need powering by that witch, if his runes make him near invincible?)

Finally, there is nothing realistic about the fact the Logen survives every fight (without ever wearing mail or at least a helmet!) with only minor injuries (hurting terrible, but never live-threatening or festering), slashing through mailed or armored opponents like butter. The first battle was also very goofy, with the Barbarians swallowing up the charge of the Union cavallery, slaughtering all, donning their armor and attacking in that disguise within half an hour or so.

[SkynJay]

- it gets very repetitive: I do not want to be told for the umpteenth time that Glokta's leg hurts adn that he can only eat porridge and that Dogman feels like he needed to take a piss real bad.

I guess I never felt this hurt the story. A reminder of what the character is thinking. Im sure you and I have many thoughts at multiple times during one day.

- even the extended swordfights get boring, because it's always more of the same, just a little gorier. Quite a few of those fights don't serve the plot in any way (e.g. when Logen kills a bunch of archers all on his own by waiting in the dark until they are asleep)

Ill agree to a point. I get tired of the actual "fights" in most lit, there is only so many ways to show one. I prefer the characters, the plot, etc. But I think Abercrombie does a good job of not dragging them on for pages, and shows them from different angles. I liked getting a view of the contest from someone other than Luthar, for instance.

- He relies overall way to much on gore and grossness (Eaters, yuck) and overlong fights

Overlong fights ive agreed with to a point, but grossness? Its a gritty world. And Eaters are part of his lore, i dont think its any yuckier than anything in the grimdark type of fantasy.

- The world is not really convincing and clicheed, IMO, and not differentiated. Logen can read and wears buttoned shirts, some Barbarian...

Does he HAVE to be Conan to be a barbarian. And isnt some of the point that he is seen as barbaric by those who dont know him, not by his own?

- Too many of the supporting cast are just caricatures, like the two bickering Generals

Meh, the generals were minor characters that i felt were designed to show more about West's personality than their own.

- the fool's errand on the other continent was rather boring (about as bad as Brienne's in AFFC, for the latter we may hope that it served some purpose we do not know yet)

Completely disagree. I love that the giant epic quest was a complete and total failure. Something new(at least to me at the time, as i read Abercrombie before Martin). And it showed that even the most powerful in Abercrombie's world was not invincible.

- That the Seed has side-effects like radioactive fallout was also silly

Magic cant have consequences? We have many novels where magic is just abracadabra hocus pocus that can do anything. In this book every magic user is left to live with the consequences, and most are ok with them. Bayaz is evil. Probably knew the affects of his spell and didnt care. Eaters take their power by force.

Obviously Abercrombie is an author i really enjoy, so dont take this as an attack, because i know not everyone has the same tastes. But i had to show why I disagree with your analysis, which i assume is why you posted =)

[Wik]

Hey all. I am drudging this old thread up to follow up with some questions about Bayaz. I read "The Heroes" and am doing a re-read on The First Law trilogy, planning on going into BSC after that again.

Just a couple quick questions comments, would love to get feedback on!

Bayaz is always stressing that knowledge leads to greater art. Is it possible, with his seemingly immortal age or at least drastically slowed pace of aging, that by gaining more knowledge, the toll you pay for "making art" is lessened? Kind of a way to mitigate the exhaustion of tapping into the other side. As if that knowledge would allow him to more accurately and safely tap into the underworld for magic...

Also, why does he and the other Magi either never have an apprentice (in the case of the other Magi) or (in Bayaz's case at least) have pure incompetent buffoons? Quai seemed to be a young man with very little magic ability/knowledge. The two goons we see in "The Heroes" are just that, goons. Perhaps they weren't even apprentices (can't recall) and more just "engineers" who were in his service. I just find it interesting that Bayaz and the Magi were taught by Juvens. He was killed by The Maker, who was in turn, killed by the Magi (or Bayaz, whatever). Now, Bayaz, the apprentice or Juvens is so powerful he literally runs a large part of the world and only intercedes in small doses to bend The Union to his will and install people loyal to him. Are you telling me, as powerful as he is, he can't find a single damn apprentice who is worth a shit? I don't expect that he would find an Anakin Skywlker type who instantly starts owning everything and challenging his master, but it would seem, as powerful as he is, that he would be able to find and train a competant person to be his apprentice who could do more than carry books and be the target of his scorn.

[Lies And Perfidy]

Best Served Cold might answer that second question for you. ;)

[Wik]

Best Served Cold might answer that second question for you. ;)

Ahhh, well thank you. I had finished the series and heard some not so great reviews about BSC, which made originally skip it, and then I grabber The Heroes. I seem to very much enjoy Joe though so I decided to say "F it" and buy BSC and give a whirl. It prompted me to re-read the trilogy first though, so I could brush up on everything.

Sounds like I may get my answer once I get to BSC...

[Rhystatic]

So, I just started wondering, if Tolomei could resurrect, couldn't Kanedias, Juvens, Glustrod, and that other brother resurrect as well? Tolomei made a deal with the devils, were her father and uncle just more resilient in death to their lies, or were they more dead?

This is sketchy though, because either Tolomei was special for some reason (like a giant yearning for revenge after being thrown from the balcony by her boyfriend), or else she isn't and everyone could resurrect which would be dumb.

Is it just me, or has a giant gaping plot point been overlooked besides this one.

In all the forums I've read I haven't really seen anyone address a giant plot point I was thinking about. Tolomei helped Bayaz kill her father Kanedias by helping him into the Tower of the Maker. Showing that she knows secret ways in or out or at least has the ability to open the door herself. So why is it, when she and Yulwei are locked into the tower by Bayaz, could she not get out?

I kept expecting as I read the last few chapters that like during Mamun and the 100 Eater's assault that Tolomei would come prouncing around a corner with Yulwei's head in her hand. She most definitely seemed like she could take Yulwei in a fight, and then would have the knowledge to escape the tower. So we assume Yulwei won and didn't learn the secrets to escaping before he killed her, or somehow they both died which MIGHT be plausible.

[Rhystatic]

Interesting conversation :). My own opinion on the trilogy is very mixed. The author juggled with some interesting and controversial ideas and themes and i though he handled them surprisingly well:

How no one gets what he deserves in real life, that good or evil is a matter of perspective, that morality always favors the victor, how history usually becomes a tool for manipulation, and how money is what really makes the world go round.

I just finished the books. As in yesterday. And at first I really just thought to myself, "This is how it ended?" But the more I think about it the more I agree with SkiesofAzel. This book didn't try to hollywoodize or blow your mind or just huge plot twist random death to get readers talking. He wrote a book with amazingly vivid characters and stuck to them. The whole getting what you deserve and life not being fair really talks to me in this series. Especially considering West and Glokta's endings. I really was sad about Collem.

I definitely felt the whole Money makes the world go round and history manipulation aspect of it. I also loved the almost political subtext to democracy and the "power in the hands of the people" situations throughout the book. Especially when Marovia would come up with an idea that is currently employed by the United States or another country's government and people would snicker. National healthcare. HAH. Equal taxations? LOL.

Excellent series. The more I think on it and browse forums and speak with people the more I really do end up liking the endings. As painful as they may have been to start. RIP Thunderhead. That one really tore me to the core. I liked Logen until then.

Edit: Just wanted to add. The only person I truly believe didn't stick to who he was is Jezal. I guess I just honestly believed he had changed for the better. I don't believe he would've bowed at the end to Bayaz like that. But I guess I've never been melted from the inside and I also guess maybe Joe is just trying to teach me something and this is still one last painful lesson about how people really don't change.

[Turgon]

This is sketchy though, because either Tolomei was special for some reason (like a giant yearning for revenge after being thrown from the balcony by her boyfriend), or else she isn't and everyone could resurrect which would be dumb.

It is explained that she could bond to the other side and kind of "live" again, because she handled the Seed for her father for many years.