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

[Maithanet]

Several people on this board have argued that the First Law trilogy can be interpreted as an allegory for the Cold War, from the perspective of the third world. For example:

Spoilers for Trilogy

The real war isn't about Adua or the North, it's about the Bayaz/Khalul showdown. The citizens of Adua are just caught in the crossfire, and the results are understandably very shitty for them. Bayaz doesn't care about any of these people, he cares about maintaining his own position of power in comparison to Khalul. Is Bayaz better than Khalul? Maybe, maybe not, we really don't know enough to say. But for the thousands of people killed in the fighting or by radiation sickness afterwards, it makes no difference.

If you are looking for simple escapism, Abercrombie may not be for you. But, to be honest, wouldn't you say the same about Martin? How are those Starks doing these days?

In comparison to the Trilogy, all three of the standalones have a happ(ier) ending. But all three also have a few moments of utter misery before they get there, and very few characters make it through unscathed.

[Free Northman]

If you are looking for simple escapism, Abercrombie may not be for you. But, to be honest, wouldn't you say the same about Martin? How are those Starks doing these days?

No, because I think people have severely misinterpreted ASOIAF, and that the early shocks (like Ned's beheading) and the mid series shocks (like the Red Wedding) are merely creating the foundation for a tremendous return for our heroes. With some tragic losses along the way ahead, undoubtedly.

But it will in the end be a Time for Wolves. Martin hasn't subverted the tropes nearly as much as people seem to think. He has just disguised the traditional story with a bit of gore and tribulation along the way.

[Errant Bard]

I do think Ardee likes Glotka though, could just be me, but I think she finds him interesting, so I am unsure if that is really a horrendous ending for her.

She is broken and she settles. That is incredibly sad to me. Though it's better than drinking yourself to death, starving or going on the streets, I suppose. It's a far cry from achieving anything, though.

But, to be honest, wouldn't you say the same about Martin? How are those Starks doing these days?

Martin is very very classic in his story structure, the Starks are faring exactly like any band of kids who are going to save the world then have a happy ending always fare mid-story. Martin's spin on Fantasy is on the details (Arya is not only cosmetically bloodthirty, unlike in the more traditional idea of the archetype, for example) and on the focus he gives (he expands on the fall from power, something that is usually either told in prologue or in a flashback near the end when the hidden heir enters into his power, for example, and shirks on the badass training, magic and battles)... But ultimately, the story he tells is stock, and well-aligned with the tastes of someone who looks for escapism and heroics (even if the heroics are tainted, bias can make you forget, anyway.) We know for sure that the ending will not be a downer anyway, it's 100% guaranteed some sort of good guy will win.

[Free Northman]

Several people on this board have argued that the First Law trilogy can be interpreted as an allegory for the Cold War, from the perspective of the third world.

That is very possible, I grant you that. But that's not why we read fantasy, anymore than we want to read about Dany in Meereen as some allegory for the US occupation of Iraq. Which I'm not saying it is, but some have also claimed it to be.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. The books really pulled me in, heart and soul. I applaud Mr. Abercrombie for his skill at his craft.

But I still yearn for that long lost feeling after putting a book down of "Damn, my heart is bursting with emotion now, I enjoyed that so much." Like Gemmell used to do to me.

Personal preference, in the end.

[Maithanet]

No, because I think people have severely misinterpreted ASOIAF, and that the early shocks (like Ned's beheading) and the mid series shocks (like the Red Wedding) are merely creating the foundation for a tremendous return for our heroes. With some tragic losses along the way ahead, undoubtedly.

But it will in the end be a Time for Wolves. Martin hasn't subverted the tropes nearly as much as people seem to think. He has just disguised the traditional story with a bit of gore and tribulation along the way.

We'll see. Martin himself said that the ending would be "bittersweet", and just how much bitter and sweet do you expect, given his track record thus far? I personally would say that Abercrombie's ending could easily be described as bittersweet. I guess if you have a healthy skepticism of Logen and Bayaz from the start, then you feel less betrayed in the end.

That is very possible, I grant you that. But that's not why we read fantasy

Well, that's not why you read fantasy. And that's fine. I personally love how allegory can add meaning to stories. I actually love the Cold War interpretation because it makes me think about the world in a slightly different way. Which is what great books do.

[Free Northman]

We'll see. Martin himself said that the ending would be "bittersweet", and just how much bitter and sweet do you expect, given his track record thus far? I personally would say that Abercrombie's ending could easily be described as bittersweet. I guess if you have a healthy skepticism of Logen and Bayaz from the start, then you feel less betrayed in the end.

Well, that's not why you read fantasy. And that's fine. I personally love how allegory can add meaning to stories. I actually love the Cold War interpretation because it makes me think about the world in a slightly different way. Which is what great books do.

Fair enough. Just a question, though. What is the "sweet" part of the First Law ending?

[Errant Bard]

I personally would say that Abercrombie's ending could easily be described as bittersweet. I guess if you have a healthy skepticism of Logen and Bayaz from the start, then you feel less betrayed in the end.

The First Law ending can only be described as a downer

The heroes are dead, or shown to be assholes, and working for the sith lord in the most abhorrent job ever, not a single dream is left unshattered, women are locked in the kitchen, Ferro gets negative character development, and only Jezal has a bit of positive progression, even as a whipped dog. More downer than that, it would be a caricature.

I like Black Dow though.

I did not feel betrayed, but I thought it was a very bleak world to paint. (though I say world, but I always felt the biggest weakness in the First Law was that the world did not feel alive, but bland and empty, cardboard scenery for the great characters to play their act. Just me, maybe.) It was not that subtle that

Bayaz and Logen were not parangons of virtue by book 2, certainly?

[Maithanet]

Martin is very very classic in his story structure, the Starks are faring exactly like any band of kids who are going to save the world then have a happy ending always fare mid-story.

You think the classic story has the patriarch executed for treason and then the matriarch and oldest son murdered at a wedding? That is a pretty dark "kids save the world" story. Obviously, when it comes to Martin we don't know how it will play out, but I personally think that at the end, the Starks are going to be a hell of a lot worse off than they were in the beginning.

What is the "sweet" part of the First Law ending?

Spoiler

Well...Adua was not utterly destroyed by the Eaters. Presumably Khalul will need to find another approach in their ongoing struggle (this double-down technique with the eaters is growing unsustainable given the unrest we see in Ghurkul). The war between them has gone from boiling to a simmer, which is obviously for the best for everyone.

Jezal is king and has actual aspirations to make things better in what little ways he can. Knowing what we do about Glokta, there's a good chance things will get better in Adua in time.

Glotka gets his revenge on Sult for being such a monster.

Ferro has the power to pursue her revenge in earnest.

Shivers has given up revenge and is instead looking for a better life.

I think there were some other little things I don't remember, it's been a couple years.

[Free Northman]

You think the classic story has the patriarch executed for treason and then the matriarch and oldest son murdered at a wedding? That is a pretty dark "kids save the world" story. Obviously, when it comes to Martin we don't know how it will play out, but I personally think that at the end, the Starks are going to be a hell of a lot worse off than they were in the beginning.

Spoiler

Well...Adua was not utterly destroyed by the Eaters. Presumably Khalul will need to find another approach in their ongoing struggle (this double-down technique with the eaters is growing unsustainable given the unrest we see in Ghurkul). The war between them has gone from boiling to a simmer, which is obviously for the best for everyone.

Jezal is king and has actual aspirations to make things better in what little ways he can. Knowing what we do about Glokta, there's a good chance things will get better in Adua in time.

Glotka gets his revenge on Sult for being such a monster.

Ferro has the power to pursue her revenge in earnest.

Shivers has given up revenge and is instead looking for a better life.

I think there were some other little things I don't remember, it's been a couple years.

Frankly...

Having Glockta come out on top against Sult is like reading about Goering coming out on top against Himmler in some internal Nazi squabble during WW2.

And having Khalul defeated by Bayaz is like seeing Darth Sidious overcome Darth Vader in some Sith civil war. So what if Adua is saved? Who cares about Adua, when it is merely a tool in service of the great evil of the world. Adua should actually have fallen for the story to have some positive outcome.

As for Jezal. If you see his ending as positive - Accepting his fate as a cowardly servant of an evil overlord, stupidly raping his lesbian wife every night while thinking she is actually enjoying it. Well, I cannot agree with your assessment.

Coming back to Ninefingers and his band of warriors. I don't see it as unrealistic in the slightest for a man to be a fearsome warrior, bloodthirsty to his enemies, but at the same time being fiercely loyal to his friends, to the point of laying down his life to save them. We see it all the time in real war. Soldiers falling on grenades to save their squad members.

Logen could have been realistically portrayed as a terrible enemy, while still being a good friend that inspires loyalty among his allies.

Instead, he was deliberately made to be as evil and unreliable a bastard as possible. That is not a necessity of making him realistic. That is a deliberate attempt to make him evil and unlikeable.

[Maithanet]

Saying Adua getting saved doesn't matter is pretty rough man. Seems like a nice place overall, and a lot of innocent people live there. Bayaz is the problem and he'll get his eventually. But not this trilogy.

On Logen, yes, he could have been a hypercompetant soldier, fiercesome to fight against, but loyal to his men. But really, that was Threetrees, wasn't it? And I liked Threetrees. But everything we hear about Logen just in the first two books paints a different picture than that. "Can't have too many knives", does that sound like a regular, chummy soldier? "Killed more men than Winter"? Bethod's personal enforcer? There are plenty of hints that Logen is just a bad bad man, and that the Bloody Nine is worse.
I mean, I agree that Abercrombie could have made Logen be more or less just like Threetrees. But haven't we seen that character before in plenty of other fantasy? And what would his arc really be? Would he come to realize that Bayaz is a heartless bastard and then kill him? Wouldn't that just open up the world to complete domination from the Ghurkish? Should we just ignore that fact?

[Bearbert Dondarrion]

What you need to realize is that nothing has ended. Absolutely nothing. The war goes on and Bayaz has a very small advantage now. That's the brilliant part of it.

And no, you can't be a killing machine and a good guy. If you enjoy killing, you're a complete monster.

Btw, both Wests got kind of a happy ending. Nobody can Hurt Ardee now and she is married to a good friend of hers. And West got from being a lowly colonel to a war hero who has saved his city and will be remembered. That's what he wanted. Honestly, if this is the most bitter ending you've read, consider yourself lucky...

And if you actually think that millions of people being slaughtered and the rest of the world enslaved would have been a happier ending, you're crazy.

[Free Northman]

Saying Adua getting saved doesn't matter is pretty rough man. Seems like a nice place overall, and a lot of innocent people live there. Bayaz is the problem and he'll get his eventually. But not this trilogy.

On Logen, yes, he could have been a hypercompetant soldier, fiercesome to fight against, but loyal to his men. But really, that was Threetrees, wasn't it? And I liked Threetrees. But everything we hear about Logen just in the first two books paints a different picture than that. "Can't have too many knives", does that sound like a regular, chummy soldier? "Killed more men than Winter"? Bethod's personal enforcer? There are plenty of hints that Logen is just a bad bad man, and that the Bloody Nine is worse.

I mean, I agree that Abercrombie could have made Logen be more or less just like Threetrees. But haven't we seen that character before in plenty of other fantasy? And what would his arc really be? Would he come to realize that Bayaz is a heartless bastard and then kill him? Wouldn't that just open up the world to complete domination from the Ghurkish? Should we just ignore that fact?

If Abercrombie was to write a more redemptive themed series, I would like to see...

Logen survive, make his way to the South and meet Khalul. He then learns that Khalul was actually the Good Magi, forced into creating Eaters in desperation to defeat the evil Bayaz (as alluded to by Mammun in any case). Logen should then be cured by Khalul of his "possession" by the demon called the Bloody-Nine. Then he should go through the remainder of his life in bitter remorse over all the evil he has done, and then swear to use his fighting skills allied to the side of right this time to bring down the evil Bayaz.

He can then become a Shaman (or whatever you call the practitioners of the fourth branch of magic of Spirit mastery, as first practiced by Juvens' brother Bedeth) and vow to make right as many of the wrongs he created as possible over the course of the next 3 books, while still being an awesome badass when encountering the evil preying on the weak and innocent.

In the end he then survives and becomes the new tormented Shaman that guides wanders through the world for the next thousand years, having killed Bayaz himself in a one on one battle. And for all of those 1000 years, having nightmares and neverending remorse for all the friends and innocents he killed in his despicable former life.

EDIT to add

Including being visited by Tul Duru's forgiving spirit to give him guidance in times of need. Tul Duru's fogiveness only making his remorse all the greater, realising what a shitstain on society he used to be.

Anyway, a boy can dream.

[Errant Bard]

You think the classic story has the patriarch executed for treason and then the matriarch and oldest son murdered at a wedding?

That is not part of structure, it's just different details and focus. The structure itself is the same: it's still the same road if you drive a summer day or during a snowstorm at night.

And yes, it's classic to have Belgarion's family get burned alive, Rand's family be murdered in some political coup, Aragorn's (Dany analogue here though) family be exiled for like forever from Atlantis, then from their fallen realm, Inigo Montoya's family be murdered in front of him by a man in black, Harry Potter's family executed when he was a kid by the dark lord, Kvothe's entire tribe gruesomely annihilated in front of him, not better for the Mena Akaran, Tobin, Fitzchevalry, Otah and so on... Even bloody Cnaiur and Khellus get this.

As I said, Martin differs here because he gives the focus to that fall: three books, and he makes the details a bit more grim, natural, believable or realistic, if you wish, but to me it mostly looks like a byproduct of having to tell the actual story instead of going over it in two sentences. He talked in one recent interview about how he disliked sentences like "and he ruled wisely for 300 years" asking what that meant and how he was trying to actually show that wise rule, and how it was not that easy. It's exactly what I am talking about: he is not saying "and he ruled wisely for 300 years", but he is still showing (or trying to) a wise, long rule.

Well...Adua was not utterly destroyed by the Eaters. Presumably Khalul will need to find another approach in their ongoing struggle (this double-down technique with the eaters is growing unsustainable given the unrest we see in Ghurkul). The war between them has gone from boiling to a simmer, which is obviously for the best for everyone.

Jezal is king and has actual aspirations to make things better in what little ways he can. Knowing what we do about Glokta, there's a good chance things will get better in Adua in time.

Glotka gets his revenge on Sult for being such a monster.

Ferro has the power to pursue her revenge in earnest.

Shivers has given up revenge and is instead looking for a better life.

It really amounts to "it could be worse", doesn't it?

Glokta is a monster following Bayaz, there is no happy end having a monster kill a monster.

Ferro lost, or never gained back any humanity or positive emotion, this is no good end for her, this is living in hell.

Shivers is more than minor in the grand scheme.

Adua not being destroyed is one of these "it could be worse" things, but the universe doesn't need to be destroyed for it to be a bad end, so it's hardly a relevant point.

Jezal's slight development is the single good point. But it should be noted that he'll likely be miserable all his life, his dreams are crushed, his wife hates him, his power is hollow, he has to work for the big bad doing stuff he hates if the big bad asks, his entourage is a nest of vipers, starting with torturer in chief Glokta, and he's not likely to be able to do much with that.

Thinking about it, Black Dow winning was sweet, though. And Logen's last line, I liked it.

If Abercrombie was to write a more redemptive themed series, I would like to see...

Logen survive, make his way to the South and meet Khalul. He then learns that Khalul was actually the Good Magi, forced into creating Eaters in desperation to defeat the evil Bayaz (as alluded to by Mammun in any case). Logen should then be cured by Khalul of his "possession" by the demon called the Bloody-Nine. Then he should go through the remainder of his life in bitter remorse over all the evil he has done, and then swear to use his fighting skills allied to the side of right this time to bring down the evil Bayaz.

He can then become a Shaman (or whatever you call the practitioners of the fourth branch of magic of Spirit mastery, as first practiced by Juvens' brother Bedeth) and vow to make right as many of the wrongs he created as possible over the course of the next 3 books, while still being an awesome badass when encountering the evil preying on the weak and innocent.

In the end he then survives and becomes the new Shaman that guides the world for the next thousand years, having killed Bayaz himself in a one on one battle. An for all of those 1000 years, having nightmares and neverending remorse for all the friends and innocents he killed in his despicable former life.

Anyway, a boy can dream.

But that seems exactly what Joe was trying to destroy, the idea of that murderer who gets a free pass pass because of possession or whatever, of "good" hyper old magicians who manage to be super selfless and also to be de facto rulers of half the world, of stark delimitations between good and evil people, of mere mortals who win against super talented, trained, powerful geniuses through the power of sunshine, happiness and little puppies, and of redemption itself if we go that way.

What you describe sounds like it sprung from Eddings' mind.

Also, Logen already lives in remorse. But he's not going to become less of the celebrity he is for that trifle, though.

[Errant Bard]

.

[Bearbert Dondarrion]

Some very minor spoilers for the standalones

Read the standalones for Abercrombie doing redemption. Not BSC though

[Free Northman]

That is not part of structure, it's just different details and focus. The structure itself is the same: it's still the same road if you drive a summer day or during a snowstorm at night.

And yes, it's classic to have Belgarion's family get burned alive, Rand's family be murdered in some political coup, Aragorn's (Dany analogue here though) family be exiled for like forever from Atlantis, then from their fallen realm, Inigo Montoya's family be murdered in front of him by a man in black, Harry Potter's family executed when he was a kid by the dark lord, Kvothe's entire tribe gruesomely annihilated in front of him, not better for the Mena Akaran, Tobin, Fitzchevalry, Otah and so on... Even bloody Cnaiur and Khellus get this.

As I said, Martin differs here because he gives the focus to that fall: three books, and he makes the details a bit more grim, natural, believable or realitic, if you wish, but to me it mostly looks like a byproduct of having to tell the actual story instead of going over it in two sentences. He talked in one recent interview about how he disliked sentences like "and he ruled wisely for 300 years" asking what that meant and how he was trying to actually show that wise rule, and how it was not that easy. It's exactly what I am talking about: he is not saying "and he ruled wisely for 300 years", but he is still showing (or trying to) a wise, long rule.

It really amount to "it could be worse", doesn't it?

Glokta is a monster following Bayaz, there is no happy end having a monster kill a monster.

Ferro lost, or never gained back any humanity or positive emotion, this is no good end for her, this is living in hell.

Shivers is more than minor in the grand scheme.

Adua not being destroyed is one of these "it could be worse" things, but the universe doesn't need to be destroyed for it to be a bad end, so it's hardly a relevant point.

Jezal's slight development is the single good point. But it should be noted that he'll likely be miserable all his life, his dreams are crushed, his wife hates him, his power is hollow, he has to work for the big bad doing stuff he hates if the big bad asks, his entourage is a nest of vipers, starting with torturer in chief Glokta, and he's not likely to be able to do much with that.

Thinking about it, Black Dow winning was sweet, though. And Logen's last line, I liked it.

But that seems exactly what Joe was trying to destroy, the idea of that murderer who gets a free pass pass because of possession or whatever, of "good" hyper old magicians who manage to be super selfless and also to be de facto rulers of half the world, of stark delimitations between good and evil people, of mere mortals who win against super talented, trained, powerful geniuses through the power of sunshine, happiness and little puppies.

You know that's not what I'm saying. It can be achieved through a lot of suffering, soul scarring, self exploration and sacrifice, without the need for sunshine, happiness and little puppies. But with redemption, nevertheless.

EDIT

See Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, for example.

[Errant Bard]

You know that's not what I'm saying. It can be achieved through a lot of suffering, soul scarring and self exploration and sacrifice, without the need for sunshine, happiness and little puppies. But with redemption, nevertheless.

EDIT

See Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, for example.

I like Joe Abercrombie, but I don't think he has the same talent as Clint Eastwood at the moment. Unforgiven was a great movie.

However for the rest, I can only repeat that the First Law seems to be a meta commentary on fiction and fiction archetypes, and was not supposed to feel good. Any "redemption" type story trailing Last Argument of Kings would dilute the message into nothingness. It's not about saying good exists or does not exist, it about saying "look at that character archetype you always cheer for in other books, that is what they actually are like if you stop and think about it"... Meaning, that "most violent of men" guy, with a dark past, dark reputation, and many victims... he really does kill people. He . kills. people... That is what TFL sounds to me in essence. (plus some other funny stuff with comedic relief sidekicks, magic, politics, headstrong princesses and so on.)

[Free Northman]

I like Joe Abercrombie, but I don't think he has the same talent as Clint Eastwood at the moment. Unforgiven was a great movie.

However for the rest, I can only repeat that the First Law seems to be a meta commentary on fiction and fiction archetypes, and was not supposed to feel good. Any "redemption" type story trailing Last Argument of Kings would dilute the message into nothingness. It's not about saying good exists or does not exist, it about saying "look at that character archetype you always cheer for in other books, that is what they actually are like if you stop and think about it"... Meaning, that "most violent of men" guy, with a dark past, dark reputation, and many victims... he really does kill people. He . kills. people... That is what TFL sounds to me in essence. (plus some other funny stuff with comedic relief sidekicks, magic, politics, headstrong princesses and so on.)

I accept that. But grudgingly, obviously. As I said, it is not my cup of tea.

EDIT

Coming back to Unforgiven, William Munney has many parralels to Logen Ninefingers. He says himself he killed everything that breathed at one stage, including men, women and children. But he admits later that he was drunk most of the time - which is a parralel to Logen being under the influence of the Bloody Nine when doing his darkest deeds.

But William Munney remains loyal to Ned, to the point of risking everything to avenge him. And when his rage is unleashed in the end, he is more deadly than anyone even believed. More than living up to his reputation.

And he doesn't find happiness in the end. His story remains a tragic one. But uplifting and massively enjoyable to experience nonetheless.

Not so Ninefingers, who is just a bastard. If Ninefingers was in Unforgiven, he would have killed Ned himself.

[Rhom]

I accept that. But grudgingly, obviously. As I said, it is not my cup of tea.

EDIT

Coming back to Unforgiven, William Munney has many parralels to Logen Ninefingers. He says himself he killed everything that breathed at one stage, including men, women and children. But he admits later that he was drunk most of the time - which is a parralel to Logen being under the influence of the Bloody Nine when doing his darkest deeds.

But William Munney remains loyal to Ned, to the point of risking everything to avenge him. And when his rage is unleashed in the end, he is more deadly than anyone even believed. More than living up to his reputation.

And he doesn't find happiness in the end. His story remains a tragic one. But uplifting and massively enjoyable to experience nonetheless.

Not so Ninefingers, who is just a bastard. If Ninefingers was in Unforgiven, he would have killed Ned himself.

Bwahahahaha

Better not read Red Country...

[Veltigar]

I really like Mr. Abercrombie's work (apart from Best Served Cold. disliked that one, Heroes is so much better). I don't have problems with the bleakness of the story, but after reading the stand alones I noticed something very worrying namely that he's killing of his most interesting characters (or at least the ones that I found most interesting). That makes it harder and harder for me to get into the story, especially since the characters I don't like are still going strong (and when I say don't like I mean the ones that irk/annoy me).

In a very weird way that reminds me of Feist. His first set of protagonists was so cool, but he weeded the cool ones out and went on with the lame ones. Mr. Abercrombie is of course a much better writer, so it will never be as bad as Feists later work but still it worries me.

I shal add a small list (don't read it if you haven't read Best Served Cold, Heroes and Red Country)

My favorite characters from his work:

1) Black Dew
2) the Bloody Nine
3) Faithful Capri

4)Threetrees
5) Tul Duru
6) Cosca
7) Harding Grimm

Only one left standing :(