When does Joe Abercrombie get good?

[polishgenius]

That's like disliking Logan Ninefingers.

Logan can't possibly have nine fingers, they regenerate.

[Francis Buck]

Logan can't possibly have nine fingers, they regenerate.

In a way, he kind of has eight fingers.

[Howdyphillip]

I usually devour books in a single sitting. This was not the case with the first two books in Abercrombie's trilogy. It took me months to read these books, and I read them one chapter at a time. There were several times that I wanted to put them down, and to tell you the truth, most of the time I would have abandoned them like I did with Erickson and Baker.

There was one thing that kept me plodding along though, and that was characters. They just keep getting deeper and richer the more you invest in the story. I would find myself during the day thinking of Glotka and what motivated him to become the person that he was. I would think of Logan as the intellectual and philosopher trapped in the body of something quite different. Almost all of his characters grew on me.

In the third book of the series, the story came together in a way that was remarkable to me, and I tore through that book with my usual enthusiasm. The stand alones were the same way for me. Joe hit his stride somewhere towards the end of the second book, and hasn't looked back as a storyteller. These books have become as beloved for me as any that I have read this decade.

Keep pushing through as the payoff is as good as it gets in this genre.

I am extremely ace.

Other writers are quite poor. Yeah, all of them. Yeah.

Too small a world? I don't think so.

Hey !!! You are only a super cool, imaginative and ground breaking author when I am cracking open your books and reading them.

Round these here parts you're just another snarky poster like myself... :cool4:

[Galactus]

I'd say towards the end of the third book, and the single-volume stuff has all been excellent, in it's own way.

[Darth Richard]

Around page 3.

[Mack Kilimaro]

You really owe it to yourself to give it at least the second book of the trilogy to see if it changes your opinion.

I liked it from the beginning, but it definitely gets better from the first 150 pages.

[Guest]

I have an opinion that might not match up w/ the consensus, per se, but to me, JA is both a really solid author and overrated.

I remember feeling pressured to give it a try after being "meh" on TBI's first 150 pages or so just like our OP. I read on, and not a ton changed. I also didn't think book 2 was much of an improvement on book 1. But I felt like book 3 was a massive payoff that sort of justified the whole thing. Love that book.

I've enjoyed the stand alone follow ups but I'm still jonezing for a return to the stuff that the first trilogy ended on.

[red snow]

The first law was average but with flashes of humour and great characterisation. I left the sequel for over 6 months but from that book on I thought each installment got better and peaked with "the heroes" although "Red Country" is still very entertaining (out of the stand-alones it seems to be which sub genre you like the most that determines which book is best).

I'm always impressed by posters who have read three books clocking in at around 1500 pages and that they still don't like it. They can either read a lot faster than me or have a lot more free time than I do. Honestly, if you don't like a book by that point, try something else out. There's a lot of books out there that you'll love so don't waste time on the "meh" ones. I think what people mean when they ask when something gets good they mean "when does it get as good as everyone else makes out". That makes more sense, I can enjoy a series but not on the levels that others claim. It looks like there is a split consensus somewhere between book 2 and 3 where most of the fans say it becomes excellent. If you're not feeling the same by that point it's probably due to differences in taste. That said I know some who think it only became great with book 6. Again, i envy the amount of time they can invest in "ok" books. I'm sure Joe loves these people even more than the fans (he can rely on the fans for sales) :)

So I'd say after the trilogy if you still don't like it, you probably aren't going to like the stand-alones. My only exception to that would be if you are a really big fan of war or western genres in which case you should check out the fantasy mash-ups that "the heroes" and "red country" deliver.

[red snow]

Logan can't possibly have nine fingers, they regenerate.

I'm surprised Marvel hasn't tried casting Wolverine in a fantasy setting yet. Maybe they can next year when they kill him off and he can travel through time as different hero stereotypes? It's good enough for Batman.

[Jaime's Wench]

I've read your sample chapter. You don't.

That's really rude of you, but FYI I know that chapter needs a lot of work. I'm putting it on ice at the moment so that I can be much more objective when I come to rewriting it. You can't possibly make a judgement from that one chapter. Have you written a novel yourself? If you have, then perhaps you might know that Rome wasn't built in a day.

HAAAAAAHHHAAAAHAA!

Oh, I'm sorry.

Let me try again. Even the best writers don't ever say that. The authors whom I know will never, ever criticize someone else's work like that. Often, they'll just claim not to be familiar with the work in question, or say they can't form an opinion because they haven't finished the book yet. Even when you know they've read it - so it's clear they really think it's shit.

I was drunk, otherwise I might not have been so arrogant. But the point still stands. It does grate me when I am introduced to well-established writers with raving fans... just to find cliche characters, long-drawn out dull scenes, and little world-building. It probably does come down to personal taste. I think, for example, the novel is a 'boy's book'... and on the whole I prefer women's fiction.

I dunno about your character, but you seem to be missing the point which is that if Abercrombie introduced certain of his characters without some cliche, then he wouldn't be able to play with the cliches later. Sure, quickly introducing that there are depths to your character, if done well, is a good way to do things, but it's not the only way; life would be fucking boring if everyone wrote the same.

The thing is, despite the comparisons to aSoIaF brought on by the 'grittyness' and the rest, Abercrombie isn't really writing something that's supposed to be realism. It's almost theatrical, embracing the fact that it's fiction.

Oh I get that it isn't meant to be realism. I get that it isn't asoiaf. I just don't like the characters. I went straight from reading that to my friend's novel. She introduces her heroine, her prince and her Big Bad, in cliche 'fairytale' way... but her style is just fantastic, and the dialogue between the characters is pure magic. Abercrombie, in my opinion, doesn't.

[Lies And Perfidy]

On first meeting she is. And I don't care what you say about 'oh that's just Jezal's perception' -- We're introduced to her as someone who magically transforms a young arrogant man's opinion from grave reluctance to adoration in an instant.

I think that pretty clearly says a lot more about Jezal than it does about Ardee, and quite handily, too.

[Shryke]

Is it wrong that I imagined you blazing a trail of fire downwards through the atmosphere like some kind of meteor when I read that "aaaaarrrgh"? Obviously you're fine on landing, although you do inflict a large amount of damage to all foes over a reasonable area of effect.

I more pictured him streaking naked through his house towards his keyboard, swinging a cardboard tube from a used-up roll of wrapping paper around.

[Lies And Perfidy]

I more pictured him streaking naked through his house towards his keyboard, swinging a cardboard tube from a used-up roll of wrapping paper around.

Well yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with his forum post, right? Just...Joe Abercrombie.

[Jaime's Wench]

I think that pretty clearly says a lot more about Jezal than it does about Ardee, and quite handily, too.

Maybe. I just had waited 150 pages to see a female character, and I had to see an apparently perfect woman through the lens of a lovestruck young man. Just made me roll my eyes and take yet another step back. By this point, I was 75% of the way toward putting the book down, and that was just the final thing.

[Errant Bard]

Ha, I'd have said the exact opposite. Joe is cynical, but he isn't nihilistic. The endings are cynical, but laced with black humour and at least some feeling of hope that things might get better (and his books generally end with things more positive than they were at the start, although that's often not saying very much). With Parker (when she? is on form) you are left wondering if there is any point at all to anything and are usually left feeling rather depressed. Sharps was a rather surprising shift away from that.

I disagree with that way of seeing stories, at a basic level: For me a story is not about the payoff, the ending, it's about what is told through it.

You say that with Joe things end more positively than they start, but really, as with most Fantasy stories, his ending are not depicting the end of the world: lives will go on, people will die of violence, old age or radiation poisoning*, kingdoms will fall, history will move onward... so I'm not actually feeling much of a difference with Parker: her** stories actually feel closer to history, and I don't think there is nihilism in history. I also don't think things are better than when they started, in the First Law:

What with Bayaz having his nuclear weapon, his opposition being weakened, though they are not good guys either and they are still active, Jezal being as much a puppet as previous kings, and the northern kingdom in disarray.

Even on a micro level, Logen is back to square one, if not dead, chaos in the north, Glokta is a villain in my book so I feel that his elevation is not a good thing even if it does not really matters, as the previous guy for his job was as bad, and Ardee... life continues to suck at a roughly same level, but she is not relevant to me. Meanwhile, Thul Duru, Dogman and all the gang of mostly good men is dead, there are magical radiation eating the health of the capital's inhabitants, West dies a pathetic death. No change for Ferro, and so on.

Parker is for me less cynical than Joe because in her stories I can feel genuine feelings. The cynicism in The First Law, for example, has the best feelings be infatuation, friendships of convenience and pity, and all of them can be betrayed at the drop of a hat, I don't even really feel much in Thul Duru. Contrast that with, for example still, The Folding Knife, where we have actual genuine love, respect, loyalty (though there are betrayals, of course) even, maybe especially in Basso and it leaves me feeling that Parker actually writes the more optimistic/happy stories, even if the endings are downers, in part.

*not actually that common in fantasy, I grant you.

**I will be assuming that Parker is a she.

That's really rude of you, but FYI I know that chapter needs a lot of work.

It's not any more rude than what you said about Joe Abercrombie, who posted in this very thread and likely read what you said about his book. Negative feedback is not an insult, even if it contradicts the grandiose vision you have of your own talent.

Don't claim a part of your work is awesome if you know "it needs a lot of work", too.

[Jaime's Wench]

It's not any more rude than what you said about Joe Abercrombie, who posted in this very thread and likely read what you said about his book. Negative feedback is not an insult, even if it contradicts the grandiose vision you have of your own talent.

Don't claim a part of your work is awesome if you know "it needs a lot of work", too.

Really sorry - I didn't realise he was a member of the forum. I am only ever a bitch behind someone's back (and heck, I'm not going to deny that), and as I say, I was slightly drunk last night. As for claiming my writing is awesome... I didn't do that as such, but rather just said how I tend to introduce my characters. Perhaps I should have filtered in 'I aim to...' --that way, it doesn't come across as an assumption that I've already done it. But as with Abercrombie's work, some people like my writing and others don't.

Having said that, this thread was opened as a more critical slant toward his work... I've always been blunt in my criticisms, unless I am speaking directly to the author, in which case I speak more kindly.

[Errant Bard]

Really sorry - I didn't realise he was a member of the forum. I am only ever a bitch behind someone's back

I am not sure if you are serious, but in case you are:

• Criticising someone's work is not being a bitch.
  
• Negative feedback, however blunt, is not an insult towards the author.
  
• What happened to honesty? If you have something to say, say it to people's face, not behind their back
  
• If you feel it's bad, then don't be a bitch at all, not behind someone's back or anywhere.

[Seli]

Really sorry - I didn't realise he was a member of the forum. I am only ever a bitch behind someone's back (and heck, I'm not going to deny that), and as I say, I was slightly drunk last night. ...

Keep in mind that the genre world is quite small, and usually supportive but as far as I can tell horribly gossipy as well. You'll run into writers at the strangest places.

[Jaime's Wench]

I am not sure if you are serious, but in case you are:

• Criticising someone's work is not being a bitch.
  
• Negative feedback, however blunt, is not an insult towards the author.
  
• What happened to honesty? If you have something to say, say it to people's face, not behind their back
  
• If you feel it's bad, then don't be a bitch at all, not behind someone's back or anywhere.
  

I think you're perhaps taking me too seriously. But that's ok, you don't know me, you don't know my rather flippant ways.

I do disagree, however. I think criticism can become insulting or bitchy if it's done for ulterior reasons. I was being blunt because I wasn't aware the author was a member of the forum and so didn't know that I would be in personal contact with them, and thus that he would feel a sting from my words. I have had people from this forum deliver low blows to my writing for the ulterior motive of getting back at me, because of a personal dislike of me as a forum member rather than as a writer. That's where criticism becomes insulting or bitchy.

[Jon AS]

Having said that, this thread was opened as a more critical slant toward his work... I've always been blunt in my criticisms, unless I am speaking directly to the author, in which case I speak more kindly.

Being two-faced is a very despicable character trait, and rather cowardly. Being honest towards other people without being deliberately insulting shouldn't be that hard. Not that I think that you were all that insulting*, merely showing that you hadn't read the whole book and were really in no position to judge that particular character at all.

You'll run into writers at the strangest places.

Hey, we're not that strange!

*To be honest, I was mostly amused by your attemtp at plugging your own work by slagging off an established author.

Edit:

I think criticism can become insulting or bitchy if it's done for ulterior reasons.

Like praising your own work in the same conversation?

I was being blunt because I wasn't aware the author was a member of the forum and so didn't know that I would be in personal contact with them, and thus that he would feel a sting from my words.

I'm not going to guess what Joe thought of your comment, but as has been mentioned he is quite critical of his own work and seems to value input of all sorts.

I have had people from this forum deliver low blows to my writing for the ulterior motive of getting back at me, because of a personal dislike of me as a forum member rather than as a writer. That's where criticism becomes insulting or bitchy.

Maybe you should keep those issues to threads where it's relevant then?