Reading Joe Abercrombie's The First Law for the first time. (Spoilers for Books 1-3)

[flinn]

Say one thing about Joe Abercrombie, he's entertaining.

Glad to hear everyone is enjoying the series. I personally would stay away from the Tor reread unless you've finished the series, just because the chance of being spoiled is just so good when you mess with something like that. I remember that when I wrote a review of The Heroes, I didn't even include any of the characters names, so that people who haven't read First Law aren't spoiled as to who survives the trilogy. But then, some people do not particularly mind minor spoilers.

The Heroes is my favorite Joe Abercrombie. It is a very good book.

[Ded As Ned]

You guys are all surreptitiously silent about my progress... hmmmmmmm

[Ded As Ned]

I'll do my best. There might be some minor stuff here and there, but I'm going to try to keep it tight in that regard. I may call your attention to stuff hinting that all is not as it appears, but that's it.

If there is a MAJOR spoiler, I'll tag it appropriately. But really going to try to avoid that.

Cool. I'm going to avoid the comments section for now, but will follow along as long as I am still ahead of you. I don't really mind stuff like "pay attention to this" and whatnot (don't really consider that spoilery).

As to my read, now that Glokta is on with his investiagtion,

I'm convinced the Arch Lector is up to no good and Glokta will bring his ass down at some point.

[jdiddyesquire]

Cool. I'm going to avoid the comments section for now, but will follow along as long as I am still ahead of you. I don't really mind stuff like "pay attention to this" and whatnot (don't really consider that spoilery).

As to my read, now that Glokta is on with his investiagtion,

I'm convinced the Arch Lector is up to no good and Glokta will bring his ass down at some point.

Glotka's first chapter is so amazing. I've read it four times in the last two days and it's... so... good.

[Ded As Ned]

Glotka's first chapter is so amazing. I've read it four times in the last two days and it's... so... good.

It is, he was pretty much instantly my favorite character.

And upon some more reading... I've decided

The Arch Lector is just a power-hungry dumbass, but no more nefarious than that. We'll see how that plays out.

[The Lord's Kiss]

Joe Abercrombie's books were the first modern fantasy I tried after rereading ASOIAF too many times. I was hooked from the start, Logen's introduction, his cook pot, and the fight with the bandits others spoke of upthread. Glokta and Jezal are such perfect foils (ha, fencing!), and I think it's fascinating to jump from the completely uncivilized North where Shanka roam to Adua, the supposed capital and center of the world.

Funny thing when it comes to Logen and the kid, I never expected him to let him live. He was the archer I believe, but I knew from the blurb on the book that I was in for something gritty, and he was finishing off the last man of a group that had tried to kill him. Two things I remember, "the man who strikes first usually strikes last," and "I am still alive, I am still alive." Gripping from the first page I thought. As is nearly every other moment in the entire series, I personally think Abercrombie's gotten better with each consecutive book, with the exception of the jump from "The Last Argument of Kings," which just completely floored me, to "Best Served Cold," a revenge tale and the first of his three standalone novels afrer the conclusion of the trilogy. BSC is great, but the last book in the trilogy owns all.

I actually may have to rethink that statement, because I remember thinking that "The Heroes" was the greatest book on the horrors of war, and I can especially remember how each chapter had a concrete arc that was executed flawlessly. "Red Country" is written as more of a western, so their tonal styles are very different, but I still loved the ongoing characterization and widening of the First Law universe. Something about "The Heroes" just makes it my favorite.

tldr; you're in for a treat, and just make sure you read all the books in order.

[Eponine]

Finished the series and the boyfriend ordered and is reading the two stand-alones so I'll probably read those pretty soon. My verdict is still the same as in the first hundred pages: Enjoyable. But I wasn't blown away by it. Basically, I was interested in every character and every event, but not really invested. Possibly part of the problem was that

I was fully expecting a major character to die and kept right on trying to figure out who it might be. By the time it actually happened, it was anti-climactic.

I did think the ending was successful in combining a wrap-up and definite stopping point with an open future - that is, a future where it felt like the world would continue outside the plot contained in the books.

How long did it take Abercrombie to write/publish all three books? And did a lot of boarders start reading when the first book came out, or did it become so popular after being finished? I imagine I'd feel differently if I were doing the waiting + discussing thing.

[Ded As Ned]

I'm afraid to hit Eponine's spoiler, so I won't.

I've got a few drinks in me (man that seems to be a theme lately... I'm a night owl these days and once the wife & kids are asleep at 10pm... why not? I find myself asking), so let's talk about "grimdark" for a minute (did people hate the term cyberpunk when it was first bandied around?). WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? It's grim and it's dark? I mean, grim, dark fantasy has been around for a helluva long time. I found LOTR to be very grim and dark, (not talking the movies here). Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. Even the Wheel of Time during the worst of the books to read (because Rand & co. are all being emo and not developing at all, besides the plot grimly taking a standstill for a few five or so books). The difference is these books are all PG rated... or PG-13 at a stretch. GRRM and Abercrombie (and others I've yet to read) are R-Rated, but I don't find the stories themselves to be different enough to call it something else. It's fantasy that doesn't gloss over the sex and violence, but that's about it. (Hello Brandon Sanderson, how do you think

?)

I guess this is my first (supposed) foray into the subgenre, if we aren't counting GRRM. But the old plotline that draws us to fantasy is some dark overlord/force/etc. is taking over the world, yo. Hoping to enslave or remake in his image or <insert_synonymn_here>... Isn't that grim enough for you? Sauron isn't dark enough? Cuz he's pretty freakin' dark. Is what Saruman does to the shire, or the heart of Boromir not grim? Not to mention Rand al'Thor hating on himself for books on end with internal dialogue with a dude that he's pretty sure is actually himself, and a madman? Not everything turns out all peachy for our heroes all the time in regular, PG-13 fantasy. So what's the difference? All I can come up with (in my albeit inebriated state) is the R-Rating.

I guess I'm just saying, I'm really enjoying The Blade Itself, but I don't see how Abercrombie is (thus far) some new-age savant of the grim and dark, or "realistic" side of characters. But the difference is perhaps that we are seeing things from the POV of these characters? Possibly. On further thought, maybe it's just that I've always been attracted to the realistic character, and thus don't judge other works based on the "pure" protagonists (read that as Frodo-esque). The characters that really attracted me in LotR (and I'm just using this as a most-common reference) were really Saruman, Gollum, Boromir, Denethor. Because I related to them. I could totally get where they were coming from. Even if I'm pulling for the "good guys", I found the grey/dark guys very interesting and compelling.

So I suddenly realize I'm saying this after only reading 75% of book 1 of The First Law, but so far I don't get the label. The characters are people, yes. And portrayed realistically. But I don't get what makes it "grimdark"? Maybe I'm way off and the book will take a turn in the next 150 pages that will open my eyes a bit to the whole thing. I find Joe's writing style to be very refreshing. I find his characters to be interesting and compelling, with realistic human motivations. He doesn't always adhere to common fantasy tropes (which is a good thing), but some times he does as well (also a good thing). I find the funny moments to be hilarious, and intense moments to be intense, etc.

So maybe there are holes all through my logic here, and I'll change my mind tomorrow. But I still don't get the label. Hopefully it sells more books for him or something. Maybe you guys can help me out on what I'm missing

[Errant Bard]

So I suddenly realize I'm saying this after only reading 75% of book 1 of The First Law, but so far I don't get the label. The characters are people, yes. And portrayed realistically. But I don't get what makes it "grimdark"? Maybe I'm way off and the book will take a turn in the next 150 pages that will open my eyes a bit to the whole thing.

Not saying you are right and not saying you are wrong, but for some themes, Joe's study spans the whole story, the three books, so I would hold off judging such things as the adherence to tropes , the grimness or the the darkness until you finish Last Argument of Kings.

And did a lot of boarders start reading when the first book came out, or did it become so popular after being finished?

The first book was not that popular around here, if I recall. It had some success as a good first novel, and many read it, but it was not overwhelming. Same as Ruckley, I'd say (I think his Godless WOrld first novel got out at roughly the same time,) and considerably less than Scott Lynch. I don't remember seeing much discussion about it until BTAH, and even then it was pretty niche, the enthusiasm about it feels like it's relatively recent, to me it coincides more with the publishing of The Heroes.

But of course I can totally misremember, I have no hard fact.

[KingInTheCave]

Ok, I'll refrain from reading this thread for the time being.

[Eponine]

I'm afraid to hit Eponine's spoiler, so I won't.

I've got a few drinks in me (man that seems to be a theme lately... I'm a night owl these days and once the wife & kids are asleep at 10pm... why not? I find myself asking), so let's talk about "grimdark" for a minute (did people hate the term cyberpunk when it was first bandied around?). WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? It's grim and it's dark? I mean, grim, dark fantasy has been around for a helluva long time. I found LOTR to be very grim and dark, (not talking the movies here). Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. Even the Wheel of Time during the worst of the books to read (because Rand & co. are all being emo and not developing at all, besides the plot grimly taking a standstill for a few five or so books). The difference is these books are all PG rated... or PG-13 at a stretch. GRRM and Abercrombie (and others I've yet to read) are R-Rated, but I don't find the stories themselves to be different enough to call it something else. It's fantasy that doesn't gloss over the sex and violence, but that's about it. (Hello Brandon Sanderson, how do you think

?)

It was a very vague spoiler. Basically I was expecting something to happen all along because of the reputation of the books, so when it did, I didn't feel the surprise or emotional involvement I might have if I were new to such things.

I've never heard the term grimdark anywhere but in this subforum. I'd say that it doesn't really register with me that there's something different about it because I haven't read a lot of non-recent fantasy and because it feels no different than what TV/movies/video games/music are offering. Thinking about some of the older fantasy that I've read and liked (Tolkien, LeGuin, Zelazny, Peake), I would agree that the "grimdark" is more explicit but not necessarily more cynical, at least in the way that people experience loss and murder.

[Ded As Ned]

Well I just got to the scene where

West goes apeshit on Ardie.

That was particularly gut-wrenching.

[MisterOJ]

That was particularly gut-wrenching.

One could almost call it... grimdark. :lol:

Seriously though, I hate that term.

[Ded As Ned]

One could almost call it... grimdark. :lol:

Seriously though, I hate that term.

Haha... yeah I'm not a fan of that term either. 20 pages to go, the ending is not disappointing so far.

[Errant Bard]

I've never seen anyone use "grimdark" seriously to refer to a body of books with that label, isn't it usually used to disparage an author for trying too hard?

This being said, I suppose I would put JV Jones in there alongside Abercrombie, GRRM, Bakker, Kearney, also include the older ones like Leiber, Moorcock or Lovecraft. I wouldn't consider WoT, Malazan, KJ Parker, Pratchett, Mieville, Abraham, Duncan, Brust, Lynch or Tolkien to be grimdark, even if they have their share of grimness or darkness.

[Ded As Ned]

I've seen Joe use the term on his blog to describe his own work, although it may be tongue-in-cheek, it seemed serious

[Joe Abercrombie]

Grimdark is pretty useless, as a term, yes. There was a time it was used purely as a pejorative - that which is excessively pessimistic, cynical, hopeless, violent and gritty to the point of being gratuitous, laughable and utterly unrealistic. Of course what qualifies as grimdark in that sense was always totally subjective, as one person's risibly and gratuitously over the top is another's cool and exciting or, for that matter, meaningful and thought-provoking. People tended to mean by grimdark, 'that shit I don't like', though not including X, cause X just seems to be done better and I quite enjoy it.

These days the term's become even more amorphous, though, as some people have started to use it just for a style of fantasy (or fiction altogether) or perhaps a loose and usually ill-defined grouping of authors. Sometimes there's not really a statement of quality attached to it, though the stigma does rather persist. Often people use it to airily make some strawman argument without the necessity of providing actual examples, which often tend not to fit so neatly into a theory. It's hard to say what any given person really means by the term at all any more...

[Ded As Ned]

(Heheh... finally drew Joe out of the woodwork ;)

Finished! And onward to Before They are Hanged.

It was a fun and enjoyable read. Refreshing. The funny moments I think were my favorite part... it's been a long time since a book had me in stitches on so many different occasions.

It never seemed... "heavy" (for lack of a better term) in an epic sort of way (thinking of Ned's death at the end of aGoT). But opposed to that, it was much more... personal, is perhaps how I would describe it. Most of the scenes at the end were really emotional (for me at least) and rang true. Every character had their moment center stage.

Loved the Glokta/West reunification.

The whole thing through the House of the maker.

The Bloddy-Fucking-Nine being cut loose.

The death of the Weakest, and Dogman, 3Trees & Co. cutting those guys to shreds in a fit of rage.

And of course in true book 1 fashion... the end is really the beginning. Bayaz has his merry crew assembled and onward to tackle the Phrophet (forget his name at the moment). I'm most interested to see what happens to Dogman & Co. as they continue south into Angland.

[williamjm]

How long did it take Abercrombie to write/publish all three books? And did a lot of boarders start reading when the first book came out, or did it become so popular after being finished? I imagine I'd feel differently if I were doing the waiting + discussing thing.

From what I remember it got some attention when it was first released (although perhaps not as much as Lies of Locke Lamora did at the same time) but it maybe took a couple of years until it was really widely read around here. I started reading it after winning the newly-released Before They Are Hanged in a competition on Pat's blog, I think I had heard some things about the series before that but it wasn't being mentioned as often as it is now.

[RedEyedGhost]

The Bloddy-Fucking-Nine being cut loose.

That was my favorite moment of the first book.

From what I remember it got some attention when it was first released (although perhaps not as much as Lies of Locke Lamora did at the same time) but it maybe took a couple of years until it was really widely read around here. I started reading it after winning the newly-released Before They Are Hanged in a competition on Pat's blog, I think I had heard some things about the series before that but it wasn't being mentioned as often as it is now.

It got less than 10% the pub of tLoLL around here, maybe even less than 5%. Really just a few scattered posts in the reading threads, but not its own dedicated thread even. It wasn't until BTaH came out that the series started getting notice.