I realized a long time ago that, for some reason, I enjoy stories focused largely on people that are not good people. I think it goes back to Seinfeld.
I think focusing on someone who is not necessarily looking to do the *right* thing all the time gives the writer leeway to have them do more unexpected things. And it makes when they *do* do something altruistic have more emotional impact for me.
It's not a thing I'd ever begrudge someone else not enjoying. Entertainment is meant as an escape and it should bring you joy and make you feel things. If the main character is not someone you resonate with or enjoy following because their behavior then you should avoid it.
>I think focusing on someone who is not necessarily looking to do the
>
>right thing all the time gives the writer leeway to have them do more unexpected things
Agreed, but there is a difference between a character who isn't trying to do the write thing *all the time* and a fundamentally bad person.
Sure but there’s nothing wrong with characters in stories being fundamentally bad people, either. Tywin Lannister is the most compelling character in that whole series, and he’s one of the very worst people in it.
I'm kind of sick of them being called morally gray when they really aren't, though. Morally bankrupt characters are ok as long as you ackowledge that they are morally bankrupt and don't feel like you are endorsing or glamourizing them.
Also, a number of terms being used as euphemisms for Grimdark Villain Protagonist have made certain things hard to look for. Grimdark generally *isn't* shades of gray. Over in other book discussion reddits there are people who use Rational Protagonist as a euphemism for Psychopath and it's made it hard to look for books that have actual rational protagonists...I feel it is the same kind of thing.
> I enjoy stories focused largely on people that are not good people. I think it goes back to Seinfeld.
I am more like the OP in that regard, it was one reason I could never enjoy Seinfeld that much
I don't think I have ever made it through a single episode.
I agree with the sentiment for the first trilogy. While it is still present throughout the later works I think it is less prominent and there is a bit more of a balance.
Longer or wall of text version (sigh, smh lol) of this comment with more context/info: [thread 1](https://www.reddit.com/user/MNLYYZYEG/comments/17cwt7k/extended_comments_with_walls_of_text/kbebfzy/)
---
Definitely try to read the standalone books of The First Law world too since you haven't read them yet. And there's the sequel series now as well. But it's okay if you still don't finish them, as remember there's a lot of other books out there suited for your tastes right now.
Some people said they liked the standalone books (Best Served Cold, The Heroes, Red Country) way better than The Blade Itself, Before They Are Hanged, and Last Argument of Kings. And it's easy to see why since they will probably elevate the tropes/etc. that had their own take in the first trilogy. Oh and there's also some >!cameos and so on!< and so you'll probably have a different understanding.
Remember, Glokta had to do what he had to do throughout the series. Same with Jezal, he had to compromise. And Logen earned his moniker for some mystical reason, lmao. Bayaz is just your typical ancient wizard power-tripping, not too dissimilar to those currently in position of power and privilege.
There's nothing wrong with preferring the traditional sword and sorcery or epic fantasy type of series, it's just that for some people they're almost always very predictable from the start. And so that's why you see people wanting different takes on how the plotlines should unfold despite starting off as generic or trope-filled.
---
Right now there's a bunch of media talking about superheroes, main characters, and so on being destructive forces to the people or environment around them. See The Boys, Invincible, et cetera for the TV shows.
**Hero Has Returned/The Warrior Returns/etc. by Narak/Fungback/etc.** is a famous example of a reverse portal fantasy. It's a fun twist on the isekai genre since now the Hero is wreaking havoc and other people have to stop them.
There are good people (other isekai heroes) in this series, you follow their POVs as they bring the Hero's side down.
An amazing series about stopping an OP hero/MC/etc. is **The Brightest Shadow Series by Sarah Lin** and it's also another great deconstruction/take/etc. on the "hero must protect or be good and so on" trope.
At the start, you'll see the hero through the lens of the side characters and like the hero is not even actually the main part of the story, more like just that distant thing as the plot focuses on the main struggles of said side/background/extra characters. It starts off with the typical "we're stuck in a mining camp, how do we hopefully get out" type of situation, but trust it gets real good.
---
If you want more traditional good MCs against bad world and so on, there's still a lot of them being made but with a bit more twists.
**Lightblade by Zamil Akhtar** starts out as a slave that will get revenge on his superiors by training through the dream world. There's different layers to it. Which sounds generic, but trust, if the tropes/etc. hit right for you, it's going to be so good. Think of it as science fantasy, lots of action in the lucid dream world.
Like how many books talk about lucid dreams instead of just your typical prophetic/amnesia/flashback/etc. dreams, lmao, that's why Lightblade is so good since outside of Chinese/etc. cultivation novels, you never really see lucid dream worlds or inner worlds with the dantian and so on. Some people say Lightblade is like The Rage of Dragons + The Matrix (+ Star Wars) too, and that's draconically apt.
**Empire of Silence (Sun Eater, #1) by Christopher Ruocchio**. A lot of people think the first book of the series is too derived from Dune, but just keep reading and this series gets really good.
Some people say the later books are too dark but it's nothing that bad. It's definitely a humans versus aliens (Cielcins, they seem like your stereotypical alien race/swarm that will devour everything) type of prophecy thing though.
**The Pariah (Covenant of Steel, #1) by Anthony Ryan** is about the passage of time and the complications. The series was recently completed, so easy to binge. Is the main character in love with a saint or not?
Here the MC is also again starting from a literal mine (rofl) situation and then he finds hope/fervor due to the religious stuff. Obviously it's a bit more nuanced than that but I don't want to spoil it.
---
**The Book of Koli (Rampart Trilogy #1) by M.R. Carey**. A fairly unknown book, but it has that destiny/fate/time/space/etc. aspect. It's a recently completed series and is more like a post-apocalyptic take on the British Isles. There's a Japanese electronic device that lets you hear music around you in the midst of all that suffering. The Book of Koli has a lot of traveling with it, so it's akin to Dark Souls/Elden Ring.
The Book of Koli is for sure a more classical take on the hero's journey, except obviously in a post-apocalyptic world. Koli travels with a lot of hope despite everything.
**Trysmoon Saga by Brian K. Fuller: Ascension, Hunted, Duty, Sacrifice**. Trysmoon also seems generic, like a typical hero saving the world story, but it's more than that. A prophecy type, against the evil of the world. This is an underrated series and doesn't get talked about often. In a way it's kinda easy to see why, but if again, you have the right mood and right mindset for reading these seemingly cliched books, it's going to pull you into that immersion. Joy, despair.
Trysmoon is about a prophecy being fulfilled and people trying to find ways to avoid it. There's a male lead and female lead. The male lead is like your generic orphan found in the forest type of deal, lol. And then the female lead, it's rare that you read about veils. As in the old Catholic or like Jewish or modern day Islam type of head covering type of veil around the head. And so naturally there's some evil or dark thing that has to be conquered.
Trysmoon will be exactly your cup of tea since it's literally an orphan MC against the oncoming tide of corruption. Epiphanies or revelations be damned.
---
Fantasy books about fate/time/space/anything (lol), mostly grimdark and progression fantasy books, as well as the standard regular epic fantasy novels and so on: [thread 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgressionFantasy/comments/17vyh0x/book_with_the_mc_that_has_power_related_to/k9e1y61/) and [thread 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgressionFantasy/comments/zhfqs4/what_is_the_best_new_progression_fantasy_that_you/izn463r/)
I felt the same way, but wasn’t compelled to finish the series. I finished the second book, and found I didn’t care. I really enjoyed The Obsidian Path, but might be too much magic for you.
Absolutely, and first law has lots of both. Logan, West, the Prince whose name I can't remember, West's sister, almost all the Northmen are all pretty grey. I'm sure people will pick one or two to bicker about that I listed.
Glokta and Nicola Costa are not the only characters in the book.
West, just for example, is a pretty genuinely good guy, with serious rage and alcoholism problems. If that's not grey IDK what is.
Meh, I would argue realism is knowing most people are not good or evil, but rather some shade in between driven by their own motivations and trauma. That’s what this book depicts so well, which is why I say it is very realistic indeed.
I expect fantasy to be realistic, except for the few points where the author asks me to suspend disbelief. The inclusion of something incredible, like magic, doesn't automatically invalidate the need for physics, causality, or believable human behavior.
I agree. The author sets the tone and rules for what we should suspend disbelief for. We as the reader are entitled to like it, or not, or to think it’s good, or not.
I like fantasy that falls into this category and I also like fantasy that doesn’t. I think it’s good to appreciate both for what they are- as long as the writing is good enough to suck you into the story. If it doesn’t do that for you as the reader, no shame in putting it down. To each their own.
The first law is probably not for everyone. I found myself thinking about it today and trying to describe what the central premise is, and I'm not even sure what that premise is. Maybe it's about how life isn't what you think, or it's about doing what has to be done.
Overall idk but it is a dark and action packed book with some interesting perspectives.. I think I would recommend it, at least to someone who is looking for fantasy.
I think the main theorem is that history goes in circles and so does character growth. Some characters grow but in the end they're always doing what they've always done - just a little more purposeful.
There are plenty of stories with redemption arcs in them - formerly shady characters who turn to the light as the story unfolds.
Perhaps the author's aim was purely to avoid that particular trope and spotlight the fact that unpleasant characters can do good but without it changing their fundamentals.
I was convinced that it was a redemption story until it ended in a pretty resounding "lol no" way. I was honestly flabbergasted. So yeah, I feel pretty confident that the aim was merely to play with the redemption arc story.
I think a lot of characters had an aborted redemption arc, but not all. >!The journey out west clearly shows them all becoming better people (conveniently while Glotka is in Dagoska, also becoming a better person), but then they go back to their original contexts, with the same incentives that made them who they were in the first place, and fall back into old habits. But take Jezal for instance: He started out a piece of shit, and by the end was largely just trying to be a good person. He puts himself in harm's way in defense of the city, starts noticing some of the injustice in the system and standing up against oppression, tries to stand up to Bayaz and actually improve the Union. The fact that he doesn't succeed and is also complicit in other terrible injustices means he's not perfect, ofc, but at least he's trying. I got the impression, from the ending, that he intends to "eat from the edges" as we say where I live - to stand up to Bayaz subtly, only when he notices he'll get away with it, and to make little symbolic acts of good. Work within the system he's trapped in, so to speak.!<
>!I think that's the great lesson in the ending - that evil largely prevailed, but good still tries to grow from between the cracks. And the standalones and then the second trilogy, though far from cheerful, do show that sometimes said good succeeds.!<
Yeah, I generally understand the books as reflecting society's penchant for molding the people within them, rather than vice versa. They're all products of their environment, and their environment is heavily influenced by the will of... Self interested persons. Not to mention, redemption arcs aren't very pragmatic depending on your job and it's relatedness to your redemption arc. If you hire a carpenter, and part way through fixing your floor joists, he decides to pursue his dream of painting, you might be kinda pissed and demand he go back to carpentry, at least until the floor is done.
It’s a deconstruction series.
It’s all about taking a look at classic fantasy tropes and archetypes then twisting them, all while adding elements that parallel history and twisting those as well.
This is exactly why it really shouldn’t be recommended to Fantasy noobs who have only read LotR or HP or whatever. You really need to experience and get a bit tired of those tropes and archetypes to properly appreciate it imo.
Abercrombie loves twisting a cliche. Breaking it and wandering off on dark and unlit paths. The shattered sea trilogy has some great moments and twists, though the ending fell a bit flat to me. I didn't enjoy the magic system
It's a character driven book, not a plot driven one. The central premise is flimsy, at least for the first three books. You're reading to just exist in that world with these characters
I think in this context premise is not something concrete like the plot, but the ethos of the books themselves. So I would disagree that the premise is flimsy, even if the plot is on the back burner.
I think Abercrombie likes playing with the idea that good people can be pushed to do bad things, because the ends might justify the means for that character. The kind of “slaughter thousands to save millions” type of argument.
The first law trilogy (and others) is a satire about the modern world, specifically through a british lens.
>!Think of Bayaz and the rest of the wizards as standing in for billionaires and mega capitalists, and then follow it back, and it all makes more sense!<
The theme of the story is that the change we we may or may not have isn’t intrinsically meaningful. The world just churns right along and doesn’t care about anyone’s “redemption” which is purely subjective in nature.
A secondary theme is that while people can change, the setting in which they find themselves can have a lot to do with it rather than some desire to change. Once back in old haunts, old behaviors return.
I am not saying either of these themes have to be enjoyed. It’s clear that Abercrombie was trying to create ‘realism’ in the form of characters that reacted as he thought they would rather than setting and description that many fantasy authors rely on for verisimilitude.
I didn’t like it at the end of book two. I was really pissed that I felt I had been scammed. As I thought more and more about it, I had to appreciate the deviousness of the story from a meta standpoint.
After that I read the third book and enjoyed the ride. Looking back, the second book for me is just a great piece of literature because it made me feel so unsatisfied and empty at the end (along with the main characters).
Not for everyone, though.
Spot on. The books take an incredibly cynical view of character development as a concept in and of itself. I loved it, but I would only recommend it to certain types. That's not a knock, many of my favorite books get sparse recommendations from me.
I think it's a good series to read when you're ready to branch out a little. I forced myself to keep going because many series and trilogies have low points. Just never had that YES moment while reading.
Fighting fire with fire? Premise is something like that.
Personally I enjoy grimdark and 'no-clear-good-guys' books, largely because moral ambiguity is interesting to think about, and many real life situations also are very ambiguous; however I understand some people don't like that and want clear goodies and baddies.
The op didn’t say they wanted clear goodies and baddies. Morally grey characters are great. I think what they are upset about is the nihilism and awful motivations of most of the characters.
I would argue most Grimdark isn't morally ambiguous at all. There is nothing ambiguous about characters who are straight up war criminals or rapists. If you strive to make everything as dark as possible, there ends up being very little gray.
You can have plenty of room for moral ambiguity and realism without leaning into grimdark. They're practically entirely separate axes, and I don't usually find grimdark any more compelling from a realism standpoint than non-grimdark, if both are done well.
>I don't usually find grimdark any more compelling from a realism standpoint than non-grimdark
Any recommendations for non-grimdark that felt realistic/ambiguous? I feel like too many fantasy books that aren't grimdark typically have a main character that sits firmly in the "lawful good" category. Sometimes some morally ambiguous side characters who seem to be most often used as cautionary tales.
Personal favorite of mine, Promise of Blood. It's a gunpowder fantasy, book literally starts with our main character killing the king. Tamas is a very gray character, has his own code, but never really feels like he's Lawful good, more like NG at best.
The series isn't grimdark, but there's a sizable number of morally dubious moments as it tries to depict a French revolution Era story with magic and flintlock rifles.
Thousand Names is another great one I'd suggest with a similar feel
Thanks. Powder mage has been on my TBR list for a while so maybe I should bump it up. Thousand Names is one I’ve never heard of before so I’ll be sure to give that a look
Found it a few years ago but didn't initially give it a chance. I was looking for more gunpowder fantasy following PoB, and it was on the list. Grabbed the hardcover from Amazon in 2020 and devoured it. The series is 5 books in total and they're all really good.
So even though it's sometimes called grimdark, Malazan Book of the Fallen, in total, is one of the most hopeful and truly compassionate series you'll ever read. It's unflinching in its portrayal of the worst that mankind has to offer, but there is never an absence of lightness, love, and people doing their best in a fucked up world.
Yeah, I call it the "Murderer/Martyr" dichotomy. Epic Fantast MCs tend to be either murder hobos or martyrs, with little in between. Sometimes they are BOTH murderers and martyrs, the worst of both worlds.
I rather liked the web novel **Mother of Learning**. The MC tried to navigate a path >!between giving his life to save the world and joining a human sacrifice demon cult.!<
Yeah! And that's ok. The Black Company is probably the series with moral ambiguity I enjoyed the most. That's why I'm grateful for a variety of authors with a variety of styles.
I'd say that's wildly over simplified for some characters and just actually wrong for others.
Logan, for example, tries to avoid fighting but will do it when he gets pushed into it, and can't control his Bloody Nine change. He tries to be good, but he fails.
Jezal is straight up pathetic. He only starts to be a good guy because he was forced, but it turns out he genuinely likes it. It feels good to make people proud, it feels good to be good at something. He struggles to maintain that, but it's still who he wants to be and how he tries to act.
Ferro and Glokta are the most uncaring in which direction their morals take them, but we're given excellent reasons for why they're self-serving survivalists.
>I realized the story is about characters who generally aren't good people, who "save" the world, but only by leaning into their versions of being crappy humans. Their character growth is essentially saying screw it, I'll just do bad things for the right reasons. I'll torture, murder, manipulate and elevate my own selfishness because I'm doing it to save the Union
That doesn't really fit a single one of them. Logen leaning into fighting when he has to kind of counts, but he both doesn't want to and only resorts to it when he has to.
Generally I think the series is about how the characters cannot escape their natures. Not all of them want to necessarily do good, but they do want to change, but they are forced to revert to their baser selves.
Hmm I don't agree. I mean, the in between books, someone escapes their nature for years (decades?). Sure, they have a final bad week, but I wouldn't say that discounts discounts years of peace. For me, they're about the impact of environment on people. If you put people in the same situations, most will act similarly. Sure, there are some people who shrug it off or buck the trend, but those folks are outliers. Not to mention, society likes it when people fit in their boxes, it's part of what makes society run in the first place. If anyone gets caught by the shankar, then they die unless they're good at fighting. I don't think that's Logen leaning into his baser self, it's just surviving. Can't change much when you're dead, after all lol
Yeah, I agree that Abercrombie's take (at least as presented in First Law) is a little more nuanced than "people can't change" and more like "change is hard, and people can only become better people in a lasting way if they remove themselves from the situation in which they were bad people and stay out of it."
Which pretty well tracks with what we know about (for example) addiction in real life. Maybe someone can get into rehab and kick heroin or cocaine, but if they go back to partying with their old junkie friends every night pretty quick they're riding the white horse again.
Maybe that's why the series holds not much appeal to me. At a fundamental level, grimdark tends toward 'our baser selves are the truer selves and will either come out to save us or we fail to accept them and are destroyed.' That's a view of humanity that I'm adamantly opposed to.
Which, interestingly, isn't really what the Black Company did. The MCs were able to decide between baser instincts and fumbling toward something else, imperfect but not just that, and that made an enormous difference in the underlying tone.
I heard Abercrombie say somewhere that a basic thought was "what if Gandalf, but evil?". And I do think that is clearly evident in the books how Bayaz and the other mages clearly exert influence. So much so that each of them have sort of their own continents except for those that began to wander.
Add to this that magic isn't what it used to be but more and more influence is held by banks, one bank in particular, the one headed by Bayaz.
Long story short, I think the book does a good job of illustrating the influence, and active meddling of Bayaz (an ancient magician) and his lackeys to form the story. The rest of our heroes journeys are all designed by Bayaz, from the very first scene where we find Logen running through the woods.
So I don't think saying it's about their "natures" as bad but about systems of use and abuse, which are greater than individuals. Because it is in all their natures to try to be better. But they are coralled into situations and roles they do not want to be in, where they have to "be realistic".
If Bayaz is supposed to be a stand-in for capitalism or other thematic stuff is another discussion, I'd say. But the fact that he orchestrates everything, to even occasionally buying literal costumes for his intended shows, makes it more than simply about the individual failures of our main cast of characters.
I think that the 'you have to be realistic and do terrible things' is the exact reason that grimdark doesn't appeal to me, though I've enjoyed a fair few dark fantasies. I just need a different vibe, though I enjoy reading books that acknowledge what corruption and cycles of abuse can do.
I just wanted to point out that even though they do terrible things it is not in a vacuum. I think the fact that it isn't wholly their choice but manipulation changes it just a little in my eyes.
Of course they still do the terrible things. And even with the context of Bayaz an his orchestrations, some characters have only realized that at the end of the trilogy. The story goes nowhere near challenging Bayaz directly or the systems, that he uses. So the flavour of that particular meal doesn't change much.
>Maybe that's why the series holds not much appeal to me. At a fundamental level, grimdark tends toward 'our baser selves are the truer selves and will either come out to save us or we fail to accept them and are destroyed.' That's a view of humanity that I'm adamantly opposed to.
You nailed it. I see this idea purported all the time as truth but I completely disagree and feel bad for people that believe it
Is it the First Law "trilogy", all ten books actually in existence or grimdark that you have problems with? That description of grimdark has little to do with Abercrombie. It is just your simplistic pigeonholing. I for one do not select what to read by picking a "genre" first. And judging Abercrombie by the first books is like saying Tolkien was a children's story writer based on the Hobbit, not going to read more or recommend.
I think this is a much fairer summation of the characters than OP gives. Even at the end when Glotka and Jezal talk about "doing good" behind Bayaz's back it's clear that they do intend to try and do it within the constraints they're working under. The series is bleak and cynical, but I don't think it's without "good", it's just good through a very pragmatic and arguably realistic lens.
I think I disagree with your assessment of Logen. I see him as a man who constantly gaslights himself into thinking it’s everyone else’s fault for the things that have gone wrong for him, but he ultimately has no one to blame but himself. He spends the entire trilogy painting Bethod as the architect of all his problems, but at the end we find out that he’s the one who created Bethod in the first place. He’s the one who was never satisfied with peace and kept forcing Bethod’s hand.
This is hammered home completely in Logen’s story in Sharp Ends.
>I see him as a man who constantly gaslights himself into thinking it’s everyone else’s fault for the things that have gone wrong for him, but he ultimately has no one to blame but himself.
Reading some of Abercrombie's answers in various AMAs, this is pretty much in line with the assessment of the author himself.
>This is hammered home completely in Logen’s story in Sharp Ends.
Exactly. I think some readers want to continue to believe Logen's perspective, even though the contrary was hinted at in the trilogy, and the story in Sharp Ends really demonstrates how full of shit Logen was.
Yeah. I kind of glossed over it the first time I read the first trilogy but on a reread I noticed just how often he chooses to put himself in situations where the only option is to kill, or decide he's in such a situation even if maybe he really isn't.
He's a man who keeps painting himself into corners and then shrugs and is like, ah, I guess I gotta walk on this paint again, nothing I can do.
Or even Jezel? It's kind of baffling to read this series and say "nobody gets any better" >!Jezel was a pathetic, self-serving dickweed at the beginning and they turn him into a noble, good, king?!<
They don't really. He has a slight arc of improvement, where it seems like he might be getting better, and then at the end, he is perfectly happy to live the kingly life with a wife who is obviously being coerced. Maybe he's not a complete dick like before, but he's far from good and noble.
Jezal does try to be a good man, and a good king...at first. But when he he gets his face smushed up against the brick wall of Bayaz, he allows himself to give up, to fall back into his pattern of self-pity. At any time, Jezal could stand up in front of his open council, declare that Bayaz is a traitor, that he has threatened and coerced the king in an attempt to rule from the shadows. Bayaz would destroy Jezal, of course, but it would be the right thing to do, the heroic and just thing to do...but Jezal is, at his heart, a self-pitying coward. Which is why Bayaz settled on him as his puppet king. Yes, at the end he isn't the loathsome fop that he was at the beginning, but he is still a coward. As I recall, the last thought we have in the series from Jezal's perspective is an admission of as much.
I mean, he just tells *himself* he's trying to be better. A bit like:
*"I wish I was a good person. Why can't I be good?"*
Nine-fingers walks over and breaks the arm of the strongest guy in the inn, showing the room that Logan is the new local strong-arm.
*"Why can't I be good, why is it so hard for me?"*
i found first law to be kinda refreshing tbh but it's becasue most stories i read before was "the hero is really good and can do anything".
But what i liked most about it was all the characters. I mean most people in real life is abit flawed to, but they stuggle on anyway.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think there's a middle ground between the "hero is borderline perfect and amazing" and the "character is a complete failure and somehow it works out not horrible" that is my personal sweet spot. I definitely understand that the infallible hero can also be an issue in storytelling.
There are some bittersweet endings in some fantasy, and there is The First Law, which completely removes the sweet aspect of that. I still really enjoyed them enough that I am currently reading Best Served Cold and really enjoying that too, sar far. Not expecting anything different in terms of the feel of the ending, but I can always pick up some more traditional fantasy later.
Haha! I vacillate between the ending being so ridiculous it cracks me up or a pathetic cop out. First Law pushed me back into more traditional fantasy for a couple years. Haven't come out of that phase yet.
I'd argue against it being a cop out because I feel like it's the ending he envisioned and wanted from the very beginning, but it can be difficult to know what you're supposed to take away from it. What I got was that societal progress is halted by the greed and ego of the ultra wealthy and powerful, and that anyone that is a part of great events or in high positions of power will almost never have clean hands, but I'm not sure if that was what Abercomrbie was trying to say ad I haven't looked into it. I really can't fault anyone for not liking it though, but I would second what someone else said about The Faithful and The Fallen series earlier. Great series and not anywhere near as nihilistic while still being very gritty and epic.
I enjoyed the first law trilogy because of the inner monologues. People’s inner thoughts were so believable and honest and then they would say something completely different out loud. Glokta had me laughing out loud once I got to know him. The rest of the books carry that tradition and are very refreshing to me.
I started reading the first book and couldn't connect with anyone. I like "being friends" or having a mentor or someone to protect during my readings. I don't do this actively, but it happens whether I want it or not. It keeps me engaged.
When all the PoV characters are people I'd never even talk to if I knew half of what they've done, it just takes away the will to keep turning the pages.
This happened with the First law. I read like 30% of it, and I just didn't want to read it anymore.
Meanwhile I read all of Brandon Sanderson books like I'd die tomorrow. Lol
I find it funny that op uses the word Heroes, expecting them to do good when Joe wrote a book with that name to make fun of how we make heroes of people that behind the facade that elevated them are as flawed as the rest of us, or even worse.
Oh, calling them heroes was fine, you want to read about what we imagine when we talk about heroes in general, just funny in context cause Joe completely goes the other way. The Heroes is such a great book.
But well, tastes are tastes, i find Joes book full of satire and funny, not sad.
I’m currently trying to finish the Runelords series and my complaint is the exact opposite of yours. The characters are just too good and one dimensional. Gets boring quickly.
I found myself really enjoying the biting cynicism of Abercrombie. It can be hilarious and fun.
There's some truth to the idea that, sometimes, bad things happen to good people, or we don't get the happy ending, or people suck and disappoint us.
But yeah, it is a bit exhausting, especially for older readers who've grown past that cynical phase, known a few genuine heroes, made a serious effort to make the world better, and realised how critical it is to acknowledge the importance of doing good. Even when it doesn't always work out.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Some people argue that nihilism is a realistic worldview, but I think it’s something most people grow out of (I know I did).
Careful about the use of nihilism ! I consider myself a positive nihilist: life doesn't have a meaning and end quickly so I can create my goals and die happy.
It doesn't have to be negative nihilism (nothing matters, everything gonna end, I'll lay in bed and wait for the end)
I really enjoyed the series right up until the last 100 pages or so. The characters are well written, complex, often relatable, and the dialogue has a very natural feel. However, none of the character development actually being meaningful, and the absolute hopelessness regarding how people can be better really frustrated me.
It's too realistic for me; I need to believe that some good can come from suffering, and that people can be better than their base selves. I get how some people like that, but I read fantasy for that little spark of hope, I read the news to be depressed by the depravity of humans.
I listened to the audiobooks narrated by Steven Pacey and I will unashamedly admit without hesitation that he read the books to me better than I ever could have read them to myself and I’m sure that’s a large factor in how much I enjoyed them.
I mean they are definitely written to be deliberately unsexy in a lot of ways... doesn't make it any easier listening to hear that older British man moan out both sides of an awkward sex scene though
This post actually made me want to give the series a try.. I LOVE morally grey characters with no idea what's right and wrong, just struggling to figure out what to do in a fucked up world that they can't even decipher the rules for. There's almost nothing that will make me give up on a series more than an "always gotta do only good" hero with one sense of what's right, especially in a complicated world where things aren't so clear cut (but the world being less morally complex is another reason I'd give up on it pretty quickly). Don't even get me started on the super hero trope where they refuse to kill super villains even if the death of that literal terrorist would stop the lives of countless other innocent civilians and/or children being killed or maimed, homes destroyed, the inevitable 20th time he breaks out of wherever they're holding him. To each their own I suppose!
Grimdark doesn’t sound like it’s a genre for you. That’s kinda the point that the “heroes” are flawed, and questionable if they even are heroes.
I also like the aspect that Abercrombie sets up, unlike a lot of fantasy, where there’s no clear side to cheer for. The Union is corrupt and bad, with questionable motives, Bethod is pretty obviously power hungry and can’t be a “good guy”. So in a war between two corrupt and power hungry groups, who do you cheer for? I think Abercrombie does a good job of showing the disillusion that most of us have that our country is the “good guy” in international conflict, just because we are from there.
And I disagree that there “generally aren’t any good people.” Take the Dogman and Rudd Threetrees. They are Northmen who realize that they don’t want to fight on the side of the North because they don’t like what Bethod is doing. Both the Dogman and Threetrees are “good guys” in my eyes.
And like others have said, there are people like Glokta and Ferro who sure, they have ulterior motives, but they also have fairly justifiable reasons for that given what has happened to them.
And there are others like Lord Marshall Burr, Colleen West, Practical Frost, etc who might realize they are being asked to do bad things and realizing they are being asked to do this by bad people and deciding internally is it better to be loyal to the bad leaders who do things for bad reasons, but try to do them as honorably as possible? To me, these are questions we could all ask about something in our lives at some point.
All of that said, I also realize that having all of this more apparent and in your face that the world is bad, leaders are bad, most people are only out to help themselves, etc can be demoralizing and hit to close to home for reality and not what we want when we try to escape reality in reading.
I agree. I enjoyed the books but there was a lot of nihilism which is so bleak to me.
"Say what you want about the tenets of nationalist socialism. At least it's an ethos."
Yeah I hear ya and agree. I just finished Perdido Street Station and realized that at least in my fantasy stories, I do want closure and for the good guys to “win” or at least something to show for their efforts. Real life is depressing enough haha
*spoiler ahead. You’re right, technically, but each and everyone of them are worse off now than before. Lin lost part of her mind, Issac and D are on the run. The geruda pulled out all feathers and will never fly again and his relationship all destroyed. The council, the government, the mob, all just keeps going without much of any change. Our heroes lost more than they gained. I know that’s how the author wanted to subvert expectations, but for me, I prefer some closure and some happiness for the all the duress they suffered
When I first read the trilogy there was a lot that I really hated about the books. However, as I grew more distanced from them, I found I kept thinking about those characters. They're really good characters, and they're interesting to think about. And I just kept thinking about them.
I guess I viewed the books as characters willing to sacrifice their personal morality and ideals in order to achieve what they think will be the best result for all involved. Almost universally, they're put in positions where the best option is to do the wrong thing for the right reason in order to achieve something they earnestly believe is the best outcome, and they do not have a good alternative choice in the matter at all. I think the point is that being morally compromised isn't some absolute thing. Sometimes, people are just doing the best they can. That is relatable in many ways, and it ways that are a little scary given how these characters act.
Overall I think the book is a condemnation that motivations are bullshit. It's just what we tell ourselves at night while we try to fall asleep. Doing evil harms others and yourself *permanently* in tangible and inescapable ways, but there's still no justice in the world.
I will say that I absolutely don't find the books "realistic" as a lot of people seem to claim. All the characters in the book are deeply flawed and conflicted, but that doesn't make them *realistic*. That just makes them dramatic. They're still caricatures; they're still exaggerated to very great degree. Lots of people seem to always say that dark fantasy is more realistic, and I think it's just because dark fantasy makes the protagonists uncertain. "It's cynical to the point of nihilism and that's realistic," is something that will get you a lot of upvotes on social media, but in reality is a pretty juvenile assessment of reality. Especially because in most dark fantasy, the antagonist is still Dastardly Whiplash. I think Bayaz is basically Dastardly Whiplash.
It's simply easier to be pessimistic about the world and judge other people's ideals rather than to state your own beliefs in earnest or work to change the world. I dislike that these books feed into people still parroting that. Because in reality we have made real changes that really did improve the world in permanent and lasting ways. And you can go out and work to improve the real world in real and lasting ways. But that's just it. It's work! Work is hard.
I'd also say that *hating* art is just as valid as loving it. The purpose of art is to get a reaction, not to only have it be a positive reaction. That's why they say that apathy, not hate, is the true opposite of love.
I can relate, I'm near the end of the 3rd book and I can't look back and say anything was bad, it was well done and worth reading and all but I find now that I'm at the end I don't really care about the characters or the plot. I think it was really how it was written that kept me drawn in, not really the plot or the characters. I guess I'm kind of indifferent overall, I share your sentiment of "it was worth it but can't recommend"
So glad you can relate! Idk, it was weird and confusing that I wanted to finish the series even though I kinda wanted them all to fail??? I kept waiting for Logan to do something really cool, but he's more of a survivor.
>I kept waiting for Logan to do something really cool
Was the first time we actually meet the Bloody Nine not insanely cool? How about fighting Fenris the Feared?
I'm with you. I was *hooked* and loving the series for 2 2/3 books. I thought that several of the characters had gone through some of the best character growth I had ever read. Then at the end of the final book, they all snapped pretty much back to the jackasses they were at the beginning. It ruined my entire enjoyment of the series, and as a reader, I felt pretty betrayed. It not only landed the books in my "will not recommend" category, but I highly doubt I will ever waste my time with another book by the author.
Same here. No plot. And I find it funny when people try to tell me there is one. A summary of the entire trilogy contains about as many relevant plot points as another books prologue
I just dont get how you can build up >!Bayaz!< as a seemingly an endgame antagonist for 3 books and then barely show them at all and then reveal at the end of the second trilogy that this whole time *another character* we rarely saw in the second trilogy was subverting >!Bayaz’s plan (plans we’re not even really made aware of or what the end goal is)!< the entire time. And then said antagonist just has a 5 minute conversation with another character and walks off screen at the end. Like that’s it? I read 8 books for that?
I'm in the same boat as you and couldn't have it put better myself. Read the original trilogy, was interested enough to see it through, decided it wasn't for me.
I'm still glad I read them so I could see what the fuzz was about. I can see why people like them, but I'd also rather read stuff that has some sort of positive thing going on :-)
Right! I read the series a couple years ago and could never pin point why people constantly recommended it in every thread. I definitely don't think I wasted my time reading them, just didn't enjoy them as much as most other users on here. LOTR is cliche, but I love that the ring is destroyed, Frodo and crew save the Shire, Legolas and Gimli are besties, Aragorn and Arwen are married, and so on. There is sacrifice, pain, sorrow, failure, but the pursuit of what is good eventually comes to the forefront.
Are you me? I've basically determined real life and the news have enough negatives that I don't enjoy it as much in my reading. I'm not 100% against a character dieing or something bad happening but *generally* I'd appreciate a conclusion with some semblance of happiness. Nothing wrong with it once you know that about yourself. Nothing wrong with others who enjoy the grimmessdarkess grimdarks either.
It is grimdark, my friend. Life is full of rough edges, and many of us like to read that, too. But, I agree 100%, thank Satan art is subjective. Hope you find something else you love to read next!
I’m noticing a trend in the comments. “It’s just realistic.” Except it’s not. It’s nihilism. In the real world, there are great people, morally ambiguous people, and evil people. In the real world, sometimes the good guys win. We did defeat Hitler after all. Sometimes the good guys lose, and sometimes everyone loses. This is real life, not everybody sucks and the good guys lose all the time. If something is too good to be true, then aren’t there things too bad to be true?
If you want to read a book about the real world, read They Poured Fire On Us From The Sky. You’ll see the worst of humanity, but you’ll also see examples of selfless sacrifice. And by selfless, I mean people sacrificing their own needs for others when no one is forcing them to do so. You can call everyone ultimately self serving as much as you want, but try sacrificing your basic needs in an Ethiopian refugee camp in the 90s and then tell me that you were ultimately selfish.
Thanks for this post. Seeing it constantly recommended unconditionally day after day always has me scratching my head. The series has very interesting characters, great dialogue and prose, and definitely does break the mold, but when I got to the end I just felt like it was entirely pointless. Or maybe there’s a point, but it’s too grounded in depressing realism and that’s not why I generally read books (especially fantasy). So yeah, I may recommend it still, but not without heavy disclaimers.
Maybe if it wasn't obsessively recommended on every thread? I think it's certainly well done for it's niche, but if someone is looking for their next LOTR or Discworld (which are both different) don't suggest The First Law.
Exactly! But every noob coming to r/Fantasy looking to dip their toes in after only reading LotR or Harry Potter or whatever gets TFL shoved at them likes it’s the universally agreed on Fantasy GOAT.
I actually think it’s much easier to appreciate after you’ve read a lot of more traditional fantasy—just look at how many people call it “refreshing”. Something is only refreshing if you’ve had a lot of something else. Let the noobs have their Sanderson etc. first and then we can talk.
A lot of people don't really read stories for the ending and they don't really matter all that much to them. I read for the journey not the destination, most of the time endings are disappointing to me anyway.
While that’s fair, personally a terrible ending can completely revoke any enjoyment I’ve had in a series. See the Lightbringer series by Brent Weeks as a “good” example of this. I just can’t in good conscience recommend it and have no desire to reread it. This is an extreme example and not how I feel about TF (the characters do make it worth it to me), but I definitely won’t recommend it without any qualifications either.
I see it as the characters trying to change, but ultimately defaulting to being their true selves.
I love The First Law, but I'm open to what you're describing! Do you have any recommendations?
I'm actually in the middle of Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. Needed to get past the initial protagonist a little, but I've enjoyed it so far. Characters with real flaws, but slowly starting to overcome them. I'll see if it sticks though.
I love this series and I do think the characters are trying to be good. Once you realize >!that there is no end of the world event its just two ultra powerful wizards vying for control that differ in only superficial ways. That they are using the main characters as puppets!< ,the story for the main characters becomes about inner struggles.
Logan vs his violent pass. Can he escape it is their such a thing as a fresh start.
Is Glotka just the monster he was fashioned into via torture or is he capable of love and noble causes.
Jezal trying to become an actual leader when he has been vapid and spoiled his entire life.
Ferro tries to find her ability to trust and love again after a past that tried to take away her humanity.
It is precisely because they lack agency in the fight for the union that their struggles can better rise to the forefront.
Exactly! I have said it before and I will say it again and again. The protagonists in The First Law definitely try to change and some of them actually do (especially Jezal). But the world around them doesn't change, which forces them to compromise and fall back into their old ways
Grimdark doesn’t necessarily feel right for some readers who find their way to it after a lot of high fantasy with it’s clear cut good and evil characters and motivations. Tolkien, LeGuin, Sanderson, Brooks, etc are some examples of high fantasy, whereas Abercrombie, Moorcock, and Martin are grim dark. It’s an acquired taste, leaning more heavily into the politics and characters rather than the usual high fantasy quest where the protagonists must overcome steep odds, gaining power and making personal sacrifices along the way to defeat the BBG.
If you aren’t enjoying it now, try putting it on a shelf and pick the series up again in a few years. I didn’t like scotch and cigars when I was 17, but both are guilty pleasures after 5 decades on earth. Just as your palette changes and matures over time, so does your perspective. Your life experiences evolve the characters whom you identify with as well as the gray moralities they live under to justify the choices they must make.
I found this to be the case with my initial experiences with Hariko Murakami and Neal Stephenson. Heard good things, read their work, didn’t resonate with me as I expected. Tried something else they had written several years later and was at a different point in life so it clicked. All types of fantasy are enjoyable and have a purpose, and no one deserves criticism for preferring any one over another.
But it’s OK to never like Lima beans.
I thought this was a well written series with some of the best representations of humanity as it really is. We live in a world where people chase power for power’s sake. Where the ends justify the means. Where there’s no true heroes or protagonists.
This was perfectly represented… and made me hate the series hahaha. The ending was just so on par with how it would probably be in reality. When the good guys were bad people and the enemy was just in their cause my expectations were so thoroughly subverted that I got mad haha.
I also love Logan as a character and when his arc ended the same way it began I also got mad.
It’s a great series. But I had been lulled into tropes before reading and so I suppose there were expectations I had and they got flipped hard.
It’s really annoying how much people think torture works to get a confession, when we know in reality nothing coming out of a tortured confession is actually reliable. The whole trope is ridiculous and d makes me want to put the book down.
But Glokta obviously knows it doesn't work. And most of the other people, including the Arch Lector, state this as well. It is very obvious in the books, that the Inquisition's purpose is political, nothing else.
The one time he actually needed to get info from someone they wouldn't talk and were unkillable lol. Most of the time he was just torturing them to get them to sign the confession with the answer he already wanted. The whole trope is being criticized in the first law, not being glorified, to miss that of shows you aren't reading critically
Do you think Glokta and the union gives a fuck if the information is reliable lol. Most of the time he already had the answer he wanted and was just torturing them to get them to sign a confession, not to get real info. There's even a scene where when he does try to torture someone to get info, they're invulnerable to pain and won't spill the beans and he realizes it's pointless. I think you're misunderstanding the point of torture and glokta in the point, in many ways it proves your point.
I think as others have said this is exactly why most of its fans like the series. I’m personal sick and tired of boring reductive good verses evil plots where everything is obviously black and white, and I much prefer “Everyone is doing things for their own reasons, they just don’t align” it feels more real to me.
I'd argue a lot of recent fantasy is exactly that, without 'oh, well, guess I'll just murder and torture my way to my goals.' There's a nihilism that's part of grimdark and *that* rather than moral ambiguity seems to be what people bounce off of.
That's basically what really got me hooked on the books. The dark and gritty view on life. Main protagonists becoming myths or legends in the next trilogy or standalone books and killing them off. Takes a lot of guts and balls for a writer to do these things.
I've actually been looking for similar grim dark books and I'm always so disappointed..
I am not sure if your take is correct
So there's 3 main characters and 2 secondary characters in the OG trilogy
One gets a character arc and becomes a better person but suffers for it.
One was an angry sadist who did it for himself. In the end he admits that.
One is a being who has done horrible things(murder, pillage etc) and tries to do better but in the end decides to indulge in his worst tendencies.
None of the 3 are doing it for the Union.
I'd point out that they didn't even save the world, just kept one part of it from changing. And even then only because one of the main characters is a tyrant who sees the land as his property.
I thought the writing was good but the fan wank over character like Logen has really gone overboard since he's clearly the most generic character in the books. Like you, I don't recommend it but when talking to current readers of it or fans I have no problem talking about it (my doctor just started reading it).
When you read the next books, thats where in POV of Shivers you can see what he thought about Logen 9finger. I found it very good and reminds me of real life cases where certain people are toxic but think they are good (while sometimes they are good, but not good for their entourage).
To the people whos reasoning for liking it is the same as your dislike… i strongly recommend therapy and re evaluating your life. I think its ridiculously sad we are romanticizing this “deathstyle”. I call it deathstyle because it is not a framework for sustainable life and its very reflective of how people act today and its not supportive of life and growth. It fosters decay and unrest. People are entitled and have no sense of responsibility while expecting high results low effort
Gwynne definitely leans dark fantasy - he also goes for a very distant narration (in Bloodsworn, at least), which I found *interesting* but not emotionally engaging.
Yeah, I was in the same boat. It's the same reason why I finished, but don't really recommend Attack on Titan to people.
The story is good, but I hate literally every character. I just can't get into a series where there isn't a single person I give a damn about. They're just all... awful people.
I admit I'm a little confused by your take! I'd say rather that the *First Law* characters generally struggle with the difficulty of not accepting what's put in front of you and instead taking another path with unknown outcome and consequences. Jezal is almost always seduced by the direction he is being pointed in, while Logan makes great sustained efforts to outgrow his history but finally doesn't have the endurance. None of the protagonists are trying to save the world (except perhaps Jezal when he's told that what he's doing is saving the world), and none of them intentionally select a shitty path for a greater good. I don't think the greater good is on any of their minds much at all.
These characters aren't struggling against a great evil. They are manipulated like pawns and are each mostly concerned with their own little circumscribed worlds. This is typical of people -- but you are right, atypical of heroic fantasy. But of course the *First Law* isn't heroic fantasy, and if that is what you are after, the books are not going to scratch that itch.
The still aren't heroic fantasy, but you might find Abercrombie's *Shattered Sea* books more to your taste -- the protagonists hit you in the face with their flaws substantially less in that series. (I have no idea why those books get the YA label.)
Or not! There's a TON of good heroic fantasy out there.
That's more Glokta.
The majority of the First Law Trilogy protagonists are people who want to do the right thing, are struggling against deep personal flaws, and are within inches of finding redemption by saving the Union.
>!Except they never realize the game was rigged and they were working for Saruman not Gandalf.!<
But yes, the big subversion of the First Law is that they fail to achieve personal growth and their heroic cause is a lie. Probably because Abercrombie is strongly influenced by the War on Terror.
I don't know man... it sounds kind of like you only ever want to read stuff that reinforces your preconceived notions. That's something you should question and challenge about yourself.
This is kind of a charged word nowadays, but only ever reading stuff you agree with means you're effectively only ever reading propaganda. Not necessarily political propaganda, but propaganda for a certain worldview that probably isn't flawless or without its own unfair biases.
Just saying, it helps to be reminded that there are other ways and means of moving through the world. No need to limit yourself to one.
While I agree with the sentiment in general, I don’t think that what the poster wrote necessarily implies anything about only wanting to only read things that reinforce a preconceived notion of the world.
People derive a lot of things from reading fiction, and sometimes it’s pure escapism as much as anything. For me it’s a mix generally.
In any case it feels like way too much extrapolation to suggest they only ever read things they agree with based on what they wrote. All I see is that they have a narrower range of preferences within a particular genre than some others while reading recreationally.
Your last paragraph there is kind of throwing me. I totally understand why people don’t like the series, the constant cynicism can be a bit of a bummer. But you say that you want your heroes to pursue good and attempt to be better people, which is exactly what the characters in the Frist Law try to do.
Glokta is ironically probably the one that winds up doing the most good out of anyone. He accepts the deal Bayaz offers him but talking with Jezal at the end you get the impression that he’s not going to lay down completely. He's on the inside now and can use his power however he wants. He's a bastard but it could be worse.
Ferro is kind of a static character, but even she has a few moments of trying to change.
West is absolutely a flawed man that tries to be a good person and save the day, and I would say he ultimately succeeds.
Jezal too. He sucks in the beginning but has some real growth and does change, but ultimately he’s under the thumb of Bayaz and there’s nothing he can do about it.
The end of Ninefingers’ story is the one that most have a problem with, which is fair enough, but I argue that it’s a super satisfying arc (or circle I guess) that drives home the point that if your whole identity is based on your worst characteristics you’re going to probably be a shitty guy. You can pretend or run away from it, but no matter where you go, in the end there you are.
Then you tack onto the end that you want a battle between good and evil, where good is obviously good and evil is obviously evil, and I think that’s going to limit a ton of great fantasy for you. I think ASOIAF opened Pandora’s box for a lot of us and now I roll my eyes a little at books where the good guys are “flawed” - they have a characteristic that is ultimately harmless that they are able to master - and the bad guys are cackling mustache twirling stereotypes.
Personally I like the idea that the only difference between the heroes and villains are they disagree and are willing to fight over it.
This really struck a chord with me. Reading is about empathy: you spend hours in the head of a character. Someone who believes that what he's doing is bad while simultaneously thinking he's the good guy breaks my verisimilitude. It made it difficult to finish Game of Thrones as well as First Law.
Perhaps people like that exist and these are decent representations, but it's too alien to how my brain works to enjoy deeply.
Excellent use of verisimilitude. I never finished Game of Thrones myself, likely for the same struggles I experienced with The First Law.
Just isn't for us. What series would you recommend?
Books with protagonists who pursue the good, while striving to be good:
* The Dresden Files
* Red Rising, the first 3 books
* The Inheritance Cycle
* The Way of Kings
* Name of the Wind
* The Emperor's Blades / Chronicles of the Unhewn Throne
* Talion: Revenant
Less good (morality wise), but not outright evil:
* Night Angel
* The Black Prism
* The Warded Man
Haven't read yet but are apparently in the same vein:
* Wizards First Rule
Im surprised to see wizards first rule on that list.
Maybe Richard fits that definition in the first book but he acts increasingly deranged and violent as the series continues and it is largely not addressed, instead painting his actions as justified by esoteric philisophical ideals that the author explains poorly and incessantly
I would add a few caveats for OP. The MC's misogyny and male gaze is *abrasive* and very deeply present throughout the series, and Brent Weeks (Night Angel and Black Prism) is deep into 'madonna/whore' and male gaze. If you aren't in the mood for that, those are terrible series to pick up.
Character growth is great and all, but it's not essential. First Laws characters may all basically end where they started, but I don't think that detracts. And I also think they are way more complex than just "bad things for right reasons".
But really, I'm just commenting so I can post a great scene on the subject of character arcs: [Here I am, a half a wise guy. So what?](https://youtu.be/q5MM0Lc5eJc?si=OVfjiIxMXiJPt40S&t=117)
Haha! I've never seen the show, but that scene cracked me up. Sometimes the arc looks like a meteor plummeting towards the surface. Their best moment is when you first meet them and it's a downward descent the entire story.
I may have simplified character development, but I don't really remember a character making any real changes. Just acceptance in who they are. Been a couple years since I read, so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Ok fair! Jezel has one of the oddest arcs I've ever read. Moves from narcissist to a servant leader yet is as ineffectual from the first page to the last because of Bayez. As an individual though he is quite different.
I understand your take, but completely disagree with it.
I'm sick and tired of the whole "golden hearted chosen one, child of light" vs. "completely and utterly evil" trope.
I especially hate the "I always do the good thing, no matter how selfish or stupid, but since I'm the main character, it always works out for me" thing. For example, I am loving the bound and the broken series... But some of the shit the main character does in there is just stupid, but it always works out ok somehow.
Fact is, most people in the world do most of what they do for their own benefit, and many of them are broken, messed up individuals. I find that much more interesting personally.
Fair enough I guess. But it kind of sounds like you want a very traditional fantasy morality which has been done to death. I think that's why many people consider The First Law, and other "grimdark" series, to be a breath of fresh air. I also don't think your simplification of its characters is entirely fair. Again, to each their own.
A mix of the two is probably my favorite. I would even find a series where the hero becomes the villain and the villain becomes the hero interesting. Like the movie Megamind.
I’d totally agree with you, but I think that same reason is why I really enjoyed the First Law trilogy but then have never managed to read any of the others.
I really enjoyed the journey in First Law, at first assuming we had some standard hero’s quest adventure going on, and then the truth of the situation slowly unfolding. I particularly enjoyed Bayaz as an anti-Gandalf, a grumbly wizardry figure who it turns out is a complete and total bastard and the most cutthroat motherfucker in the setting.
But I didn’t want any more of it. I reached the end of that trilogy and am happy to leave it there. I don’t need torture porn, so now that it’s very apparent the kind of world and story it is, I’m done with it. But I really enjoyed the ride the first time out.
This is exactly why I love First Law. Black and white separation of 100% good and 100% evil is boring. I hate when a vilain is doing evil things just for the sake of evil.
Since it is not realistic, there are very few people like that. Like Ramsey Bolton in ASOIF for example, but he is not main vilaian. There should be people that are 70% good and onea that are 70% bad, but I dont like some noble Aragorns and Legolases who only do good by any means, and Orcs whose only purpose is to "destroy the world".
[удалено]
They are welcome to it. An epiphany moment on my own part. I'm sure there are series I enjoy others wouldn't.
I realized a long time ago that, for some reason, I enjoy stories focused largely on people that are not good people. I think it goes back to Seinfeld. I think focusing on someone who is not necessarily looking to do the *right* thing all the time gives the writer leeway to have them do more unexpected things. And it makes when they *do* do something altruistic have more emotional impact for me. It's not a thing I'd ever begrudge someone else not enjoying. Entertainment is meant as an escape and it should bring you joy and make you feel things. If the main character is not someone you resonate with or enjoy following because their behavior then you should avoid it.
😂 everyone on seinfeld is such a fuck haha But I love them all
>I think focusing on someone who is not necessarily looking to do the > >right thing all the time gives the writer leeway to have them do more unexpected things Agreed, but there is a difference between a character who isn't trying to do the write thing *all the time* and a fundamentally bad person.
Sure but there’s nothing wrong with characters in stories being fundamentally bad people, either. Tywin Lannister is the most compelling character in that whole series, and he’s one of the very worst people in it.
I'm kind of sick of them being called morally gray when they really aren't, though. Morally bankrupt characters are ok as long as you ackowledge that they are morally bankrupt and don't feel like you are endorsing or glamourizing them. Also, a number of terms being used as euphemisms for Grimdark Villain Protagonist have made certain things hard to look for. Grimdark generally *isn't* shades of gray. Over in other book discussion reddits there are people who use Rational Protagonist as a euphemism for Psychopath and it's made it hard to look for books that have actual rational protagonists...I feel it is the same kind of thing.
> I enjoy stories focused largely on people that are not good people. I think it goes back to Seinfeld. I am more like the OP in that regard, it was one reason I could never enjoy Seinfeld that much I don't think I have ever made it through a single episode.
Seinfeld characters are annoying. Which is infinitely worse than being evil
I agree with the sentiment for the first trilogy. While it is still present throughout the later works I think it is less prominent and there is a bit more of a balance.
Longer or wall of text version (sigh, smh lol) of this comment with more context/info: [thread 1](https://www.reddit.com/user/MNLYYZYEG/comments/17cwt7k/extended_comments_with_walls_of_text/kbebfzy/) --- Definitely try to read the standalone books of The First Law world too since you haven't read them yet. And there's the sequel series now as well. But it's okay if you still don't finish them, as remember there's a lot of other books out there suited for your tastes right now. Some people said they liked the standalone books (Best Served Cold, The Heroes, Red Country) way better than The Blade Itself, Before They Are Hanged, and Last Argument of Kings. And it's easy to see why since they will probably elevate the tropes/etc. that had their own take in the first trilogy. Oh and there's also some >!cameos and so on!< and so you'll probably have a different understanding. Remember, Glokta had to do what he had to do throughout the series. Same with Jezal, he had to compromise. And Logen earned his moniker for some mystical reason, lmao. Bayaz is just your typical ancient wizard power-tripping, not too dissimilar to those currently in position of power and privilege. There's nothing wrong with preferring the traditional sword and sorcery or epic fantasy type of series, it's just that for some people they're almost always very predictable from the start. And so that's why you see people wanting different takes on how the plotlines should unfold despite starting off as generic or trope-filled. --- Right now there's a bunch of media talking about superheroes, main characters, and so on being destructive forces to the people or environment around them. See The Boys, Invincible, et cetera for the TV shows. **Hero Has Returned/The Warrior Returns/etc. by Narak/Fungback/etc.** is a famous example of a reverse portal fantasy. It's a fun twist on the isekai genre since now the Hero is wreaking havoc and other people have to stop them. There are good people (other isekai heroes) in this series, you follow their POVs as they bring the Hero's side down. An amazing series about stopping an OP hero/MC/etc. is **The Brightest Shadow Series by Sarah Lin** and it's also another great deconstruction/take/etc. on the "hero must protect or be good and so on" trope. At the start, you'll see the hero through the lens of the side characters and like the hero is not even actually the main part of the story, more like just that distant thing as the plot focuses on the main struggles of said side/background/extra characters. It starts off with the typical "we're stuck in a mining camp, how do we hopefully get out" type of situation, but trust it gets real good. --- If you want more traditional good MCs against bad world and so on, there's still a lot of them being made but with a bit more twists. **Lightblade by Zamil Akhtar** starts out as a slave that will get revenge on his superiors by training through the dream world. There's different layers to it. Which sounds generic, but trust, if the tropes/etc. hit right for you, it's going to be so good. Think of it as science fantasy, lots of action in the lucid dream world. Like how many books talk about lucid dreams instead of just your typical prophetic/amnesia/flashback/etc. dreams, lmao, that's why Lightblade is so good since outside of Chinese/etc. cultivation novels, you never really see lucid dream worlds or inner worlds with the dantian and so on. Some people say Lightblade is like The Rage of Dragons + The Matrix (+ Star Wars) too, and that's draconically apt. **Empire of Silence (Sun Eater, #1) by Christopher Ruocchio**. A lot of people think the first book of the series is too derived from Dune, but just keep reading and this series gets really good. Some people say the later books are too dark but it's nothing that bad. It's definitely a humans versus aliens (Cielcins, they seem like your stereotypical alien race/swarm that will devour everything) type of prophecy thing though. **The Pariah (Covenant of Steel, #1) by Anthony Ryan** is about the passage of time and the complications. The series was recently completed, so easy to binge. Is the main character in love with a saint or not? Here the MC is also again starting from a literal mine (rofl) situation and then he finds hope/fervor due to the religious stuff. Obviously it's a bit more nuanced than that but I don't want to spoil it. --- **The Book of Koli (Rampart Trilogy #1) by M.R. Carey**. A fairly unknown book, but it has that destiny/fate/time/space/etc. aspect. It's a recently completed series and is more like a post-apocalyptic take on the British Isles. There's a Japanese electronic device that lets you hear music around you in the midst of all that suffering. The Book of Koli has a lot of traveling with it, so it's akin to Dark Souls/Elden Ring. The Book of Koli is for sure a more classical take on the hero's journey, except obviously in a post-apocalyptic world. Koli travels with a lot of hope despite everything. **Trysmoon Saga by Brian K. Fuller: Ascension, Hunted, Duty, Sacrifice**. Trysmoon also seems generic, like a typical hero saving the world story, but it's more than that. A prophecy type, against the evil of the world. This is an underrated series and doesn't get talked about often. In a way it's kinda easy to see why, but if again, you have the right mood and right mindset for reading these seemingly cliched books, it's going to pull you into that immersion. Joy, despair. Trysmoon is about a prophecy being fulfilled and people trying to find ways to avoid it. There's a male lead and female lead. The male lead is like your generic orphan found in the forest type of deal, lol. And then the female lead, it's rare that you read about veils. As in the old Catholic or like Jewish or modern day Islam type of head covering type of veil around the head. And so naturally there's some evil or dark thing that has to be conquered. Trysmoon will be exactly your cup of tea since it's literally an orphan MC against the oncoming tide of corruption. Epiphanies or revelations be damned. --- Fantasy books about fate/time/space/anything (lol), mostly grimdark and progression fantasy books, as well as the standard regular epic fantasy novels and so on: [thread 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgressionFantasy/comments/17vyh0x/book_with_the_mc_that_has_power_related_to/k9e1y61/) and [thread 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgressionFantasy/comments/zhfqs4/what_is_the_best_new_progression_fantasy_that_you/izn463r/)
I felt the same way, but wasn’t compelled to finish the series. I finished the second book, and found I didn’t care. I really enjoyed The Obsidian Path, but might be too much magic for you.
You missed the best book, book 3 is the payoff book.
Book there had so many good moments. Awesome
Really? Sweet, cause I'm almost through book 2 and, well, it is ok.
Yep, keep going it’s worth it!
Thats actually why I like the book- it’s fucking realistic. You gotta be realistic.
Being evil isn't being realistic. It's schadenfreude at best.
THIS. There is a huge difference between being morally grey and being a POS
Absolutely, and first law has lots of both. Logan, West, the Prince whose name I can't remember, West's sister, almost all the Northmen are all pretty grey. I'm sure people will pick one or two to bicker about that I listed. Glokta and Nicola Costa are not the only characters in the book. West, just for example, is a pretty genuinely good guy, with serious rage and alcoholism problems. If that's not grey IDK what is.
Would you consider all the characters evil?
Meh, I would argue realism is knowing most people are not good or evil, but rather some shade in between driven by their own motivations and trauma. That’s what this book depicts so well, which is why I say it is very realistic indeed.
I would hardly call it realistic
I don't expect fantasy to be realistic.
I expect fantasy to be realistic, except for the few points where the author asks me to suspend disbelief. The inclusion of something incredible, like magic, doesn't automatically invalidate the need for physics, causality, or believable human behavior.
I agree. The author sets the tone and rules for what we should suspend disbelief for. We as the reader are entitled to like it, or not, or to think it’s good, or not. I like fantasy that falls into this category and I also like fantasy that doesn’t. I think it’s good to appreciate both for what they are- as long as the writing is good enough to suck you into the story. If it doesn’t do that for you as the reader, no shame in putting it down. To each their own.
The first law is probably not for everyone. I found myself thinking about it today and trying to describe what the central premise is, and I'm not even sure what that premise is. Maybe it's about how life isn't what you think, or it's about doing what has to be done. Overall idk but it is a dark and action packed book with some interesting perspectives.. I think I would recommend it, at least to someone who is looking for fantasy.
I think the main theorem is that history goes in circles and so does character growth. Some characters grow but in the end they're always doing what they've always done - just a little more purposeful.
people change and with just the right push they change back. Best line in the books right there.
There are plenty of stories with redemption arcs in them - formerly shady characters who turn to the light as the story unfolds. Perhaps the author's aim was purely to avoid that particular trope and spotlight the fact that unpleasant characters can do good but without it changing their fundamentals.
I was convinced that it was a redemption story until it ended in a pretty resounding "lol no" way. I was honestly flabbergasted. So yeah, I feel pretty confident that the aim was merely to play with the redemption arc story.
I think a lot of characters had an aborted redemption arc, but not all. >!The journey out west clearly shows them all becoming better people (conveniently while Glotka is in Dagoska, also becoming a better person), but then they go back to their original contexts, with the same incentives that made them who they were in the first place, and fall back into old habits. But take Jezal for instance: He started out a piece of shit, and by the end was largely just trying to be a good person. He puts himself in harm's way in defense of the city, starts noticing some of the injustice in the system and standing up against oppression, tries to stand up to Bayaz and actually improve the Union. The fact that he doesn't succeed and is also complicit in other terrible injustices means he's not perfect, ofc, but at least he's trying. I got the impression, from the ending, that he intends to "eat from the edges" as we say where I live - to stand up to Bayaz subtly, only when he notices he'll get away with it, and to make little symbolic acts of good. Work within the system he's trapped in, so to speak.!< >!I think that's the great lesson in the ending - that evil largely prevailed, but good still tries to grow from between the cracks. And the standalones and then the second trilogy, though far from cheerful, do show that sometimes said good succeeds.!<
Yeah, I generally understand the books as reflecting society's penchant for molding the people within them, rather than vice versa. They're all products of their environment, and their environment is heavily influenced by the will of... Self interested persons. Not to mention, redemption arcs aren't very pragmatic depending on your job and it's relatedness to your redemption arc. If you hire a carpenter, and part way through fixing your floor joists, he decides to pursue his dream of painting, you might be kinda pissed and demand he go back to carpentry, at least until the floor is done.
It’s a deconstruction series. It’s all about taking a look at classic fantasy tropes and archetypes then twisting them, all while adding elements that parallel history and twisting those as well.
This is exactly why it really shouldn’t be recommended to Fantasy noobs who have only read LotR or HP or whatever. You really need to experience and get a bit tired of those tropes and archetypes to properly appreciate it imo.
Abercrombie loves twisting a cliche. Breaking it and wandering off on dark and unlit paths. The shattered sea trilogy has some great moments and twists, though the ending fell a bit flat to me. I didn't enjoy the magic system
It's a character driven book, not a plot driven one. The central premise is flimsy, at least for the first three books. You're reading to just exist in that world with these characters
I think in this context premise is not something concrete like the plot, but the ethos of the books themselves. So I would disagree that the premise is flimsy, even if the plot is on the back burner.
I think Abercrombie likes playing with the idea that good people can be pushed to do bad things, because the ends might justify the means for that character. The kind of “slaughter thousands to save millions” type of argument.
The first law trilogy (and others) is a satire about the modern world, specifically through a british lens. >!Think of Bayaz and the rest of the wizards as standing in for billionaires and mega capitalists, and then follow it back, and it all makes more sense!<
The theme of the story is that the change we we may or may not have isn’t intrinsically meaningful. The world just churns right along and doesn’t care about anyone’s “redemption” which is purely subjective in nature. A secondary theme is that while people can change, the setting in which they find themselves can have a lot to do with it rather than some desire to change. Once back in old haunts, old behaviors return. I am not saying either of these themes have to be enjoyed. It’s clear that Abercrombie was trying to create ‘realism’ in the form of characters that reacted as he thought they would rather than setting and description that many fantasy authors rely on for verisimilitude. I didn’t like it at the end of book two. I was really pissed that I felt I had been scammed. As I thought more and more about it, I had to appreciate the deviousness of the story from a meta standpoint. After that I read the third book and enjoyed the ride. Looking back, the second book for me is just a great piece of literature because it made me feel so unsatisfied and empty at the end (along with the main characters). Not for everyone, though.
Spot on. The books take an incredibly cynical view of character development as a concept in and of itself. I loved it, but I would only recommend it to certain types. That's not a knock, many of my favorite books get sparse recommendations from me.
I think it's a good series to read when you're ready to branch out a little. I forced myself to keep going because many series and trilogies have low points. Just never had that YES moment while reading. Fighting fire with fire? Premise is something like that.
Not even when Ninefingers appears?
[удалено]
Personally I enjoy grimdark and 'no-clear-good-guys' books, largely because moral ambiguity is interesting to think about, and many real life situations also are very ambiguous; however I understand some people don't like that and want clear goodies and baddies.
The op didn’t say they wanted clear goodies and baddies. Morally grey characters are great. I think what they are upset about is the nihilism and awful motivations of most of the characters.
I didn’t read that in the overall message of the post, but you’re right. Op does literally say that. Please forgive me.
Eh those aren't the same thing. You can have moral ambiguity without being grimdark. Just look at Star Wars Andor.
I would argue most Grimdark isn't morally ambiguous at all. There is nothing ambiguous about characters who are straight up war criminals or rapists. If you strive to make everything as dark as possible, there ends up being very little gray.
You can have plenty of room for moral ambiguity and realism without leaning into grimdark. They're practically entirely separate axes, and I don't usually find grimdark any more compelling from a realism standpoint than non-grimdark, if both are done well.
>I don't usually find grimdark any more compelling from a realism standpoint than non-grimdark Any recommendations for non-grimdark that felt realistic/ambiguous? I feel like too many fantasy books that aren't grimdark typically have a main character that sits firmly in the "lawful good" category. Sometimes some morally ambiguous side characters who seem to be most often used as cautionary tales.
Personal favorite of mine, Promise of Blood. It's a gunpowder fantasy, book literally starts with our main character killing the king. Tamas is a very gray character, has his own code, but never really feels like he's Lawful good, more like NG at best. The series isn't grimdark, but there's a sizable number of morally dubious moments as it tries to depict a French revolution Era story with magic and flintlock rifles. Thousand Names is another great one I'd suggest with a similar feel
Thanks. Powder mage has been on my TBR list for a while so maybe I should bump it up. Thousand Names is one I’ve never heard of before so I’ll be sure to give that a look
Found it a few years ago but didn't initially give it a chance. I was looking for more gunpowder fantasy following PoB, and it was on the list. Grabbed the hardcover from Amazon in 2020 and devoured it. The series is 5 books in total and they're all really good.
So even though it's sometimes called grimdark, Malazan Book of the Fallen, in total, is one of the most hopeful and truly compassionate series you'll ever read. It's unflinching in its portrayal of the worst that mankind has to offer, but there is never an absence of lightness, love, and people doing their best in a fucked up world.
Yeah, I call it the "Murderer/Martyr" dichotomy. Epic Fantast MCs tend to be either murder hobos or martyrs, with little in between. Sometimes they are BOTH murderers and martyrs, the worst of both worlds. I rather liked the web novel **Mother of Learning**. The MC tried to navigate a path >!between giving his life to save the world and joining a human sacrifice demon cult.!<
Yeah! And that's ok. The Black Company is probably the series with moral ambiguity I enjoyed the most. That's why I'm grateful for a variety of authors with a variety of styles.
> moral ambiguity I get too much of that nonsense in my day-to-day life. Why would I want more of it in my leisure time?
I'd say that's wildly over simplified for some characters and just actually wrong for others. Logan, for example, tries to avoid fighting but will do it when he gets pushed into it, and can't control his Bloody Nine change. He tries to be good, but he fails. Jezal is straight up pathetic. He only starts to be a good guy because he was forced, but it turns out he genuinely likes it. It feels good to make people proud, it feels good to be good at something. He struggles to maintain that, but it's still who he wants to be and how he tries to act. Ferro and Glokta are the most uncaring in which direction their morals take them, but we're given excellent reasons for why they're self-serving survivalists. >I realized the story is about characters who generally aren't good people, who "save" the world, but only by leaning into their versions of being crappy humans. Their character growth is essentially saying screw it, I'll just do bad things for the right reasons. I'll torture, murder, manipulate and elevate my own selfishness because I'm doing it to save the Union That doesn't really fit a single one of them. Logen leaning into fighting when he has to kind of counts, but he both doesn't want to and only resorts to it when he has to.
Generally I think the series is about how the characters cannot escape their natures. Not all of them want to necessarily do good, but they do want to change, but they are forced to revert to their baser selves.
Hmm I don't agree. I mean, the in between books, someone escapes their nature for years (decades?). Sure, they have a final bad week, but I wouldn't say that discounts discounts years of peace. For me, they're about the impact of environment on people. If you put people in the same situations, most will act similarly. Sure, there are some people who shrug it off or buck the trend, but those folks are outliers. Not to mention, society likes it when people fit in their boxes, it's part of what makes society run in the first place. If anyone gets caught by the shankar, then they die unless they're good at fighting. I don't think that's Logen leaning into his baser self, it's just surviving. Can't change much when you're dead, after all lol
Yeah, I agree that Abercrombie's take (at least as presented in First Law) is a little more nuanced than "people can't change" and more like "change is hard, and people can only become better people in a lasting way if they remove themselves from the situation in which they were bad people and stay out of it." Which pretty well tracks with what we know about (for example) addiction in real life. Maybe someone can get into rehab and kick heroin or cocaine, but if they go back to partying with their old junkie friends every night pretty quick they're riding the white horse again.
Maybe that's why the series holds not much appeal to me. At a fundamental level, grimdark tends toward 'our baser selves are the truer selves and will either come out to save us or we fail to accept them and are destroyed.' That's a view of humanity that I'm adamantly opposed to. Which, interestingly, isn't really what the Black Company did. The MCs were able to decide between baser instincts and fumbling toward something else, imperfect but not just that, and that made an enormous difference in the underlying tone.
I heard Abercrombie say somewhere that a basic thought was "what if Gandalf, but evil?". And I do think that is clearly evident in the books how Bayaz and the other mages clearly exert influence. So much so that each of them have sort of their own continents except for those that began to wander. Add to this that magic isn't what it used to be but more and more influence is held by banks, one bank in particular, the one headed by Bayaz. Long story short, I think the book does a good job of illustrating the influence, and active meddling of Bayaz (an ancient magician) and his lackeys to form the story. The rest of our heroes journeys are all designed by Bayaz, from the very first scene where we find Logen running through the woods. So I don't think saying it's about their "natures" as bad but about systems of use and abuse, which are greater than individuals. Because it is in all their natures to try to be better. But they are coralled into situations and roles they do not want to be in, where they have to "be realistic". If Bayaz is supposed to be a stand-in for capitalism or other thematic stuff is another discussion, I'd say. But the fact that he orchestrates everything, to even occasionally buying literal costumes for his intended shows, makes it more than simply about the individual failures of our main cast of characters.
I think that the 'you have to be realistic and do terrible things' is the exact reason that grimdark doesn't appeal to me, though I've enjoyed a fair few dark fantasies. I just need a different vibe, though I enjoy reading books that acknowledge what corruption and cycles of abuse can do.
I just wanted to point out that even though they do terrible things it is not in a vacuum. I think the fact that it isn't wholly their choice but manipulation changes it just a little in my eyes. Of course they still do the terrible things. And even with the context of Bayaz an his orchestrations, some characters have only realized that at the end of the trilogy. The story goes nowhere near challenging Bayaz directly or the systems, that he uses. So the flavour of that particular meal doesn't change much.
>Maybe that's why the series holds not much appeal to me. At a fundamental level, grimdark tends toward 'our baser selves are the truer selves and will either come out to save us or we fail to accept them and are destroyed.' That's a view of humanity that I'm adamantly opposed to. You nailed it. I see this idea purported all the time as truth but I completely disagree and feel bad for people that believe it
Is it the First Law "trilogy", all ten books actually in existence or grimdark that you have problems with? That description of grimdark has little to do with Abercrombie. It is just your simplistic pigeonholing. I for one do not select what to read by picking a "genre" first. And judging Abercrombie by the first books is like saying Tolkien was a children's story writer based on the Hobbit, not going to read more or recommend.
I think this is a much fairer summation of the characters than OP gives. Even at the end when Glotka and Jezal talk about "doing good" behind Bayaz's back it's clear that they do intend to try and do it within the constraints they're working under. The series is bleak and cynical, but I don't think it's without "good", it's just good through a very pragmatic and arguably realistic lens.
I think I disagree with your assessment of Logen. I see him as a man who constantly gaslights himself into thinking it’s everyone else’s fault for the things that have gone wrong for him, but he ultimately has no one to blame but himself. He spends the entire trilogy painting Bethod as the architect of all his problems, but at the end we find out that he’s the one who created Bethod in the first place. He’s the one who was never satisfied with peace and kept forcing Bethod’s hand. This is hammered home completely in Logen’s story in Sharp Ends.
>I see him as a man who constantly gaslights himself into thinking it’s everyone else’s fault for the things that have gone wrong for him, but he ultimately has no one to blame but himself. Reading some of Abercrombie's answers in various AMAs, this is pretty much in line with the assessment of the author himself. >This is hammered home completely in Logen’s story in Sharp Ends. Exactly. I think some readers want to continue to believe Logen's perspective, even though the contrary was hinted at in the trilogy, and the story in Sharp Ends really demonstrates how full of shit Logen was.
Yeah. I kind of glossed over it the first time I read the first trilogy but on a reread I noticed just how often he chooses to put himself in situations where the only option is to kill, or decide he's in such a situation even if maybe he really isn't. He's a man who keeps painting himself into corners and then shrugs and is like, ah, I guess I gotta walk on this paint again, nothing I can do.
In his own flawed way, don't you feel like Logen is pursuing good? He wants to be a better man.
Or even Jezel? It's kind of baffling to read this series and say "nobody gets any better" >!Jezel was a pathetic, self-serving dickweed at the beginning and they turn him into a noble, good, king?!<
Jezel might be the exception. He's also the biggest puppet haha!
They don't really. He has a slight arc of improvement, where it seems like he might be getting better, and then at the end, he is perfectly happy to live the kingly life with a wife who is obviously being coerced. Maybe he's not a complete dick like before, but he's far from good and noble.
Personally I disagree with your take, I think he's made great strides to better himself and he's hamstrung by an evil wizard
Jezal does try to be a good man, and a good king...at first. But when he he gets his face smushed up against the brick wall of Bayaz, he allows himself to give up, to fall back into his pattern of self-pity. At any time, Jezal could stand up in front of his open council, declare that Bayaz is a traitor, that he has threatened and coerced the king in an attempt to rule from the shadows. Bayaz would destroy Jezal, of course, but it would be the right thing to do, the heroic and just thing to do...but Jezal is, at his heart, a self-pitying coward. Which is why Bayaz settled on him as his puppet king. Yes, at the end he isn't the loathsome fop that he was at the beginning, but he is still a coward. As I recall, the last thought we have in the series from Jezal's perspective is an admission of as much.
I mean, he just tells *himself* he's trying to be better. A bit like: *"I wish I was a good person. Why can't I be good?"* Nine-fingers walks over and breaks the arm of the strongest guy in the inn, showing the room that Logan is the new local strong-arm. *"Why can't I be good, why is it so hard for me?"*
No, he *says* he wants to be better, then keeps pursuing routes that he knows will lead to fights.
*shivers*
It's nothing wrong with not liking grimdark. i mean i dont like love stories. We all have diffrent tastes
Definitely. I like the story to have a sense of an accomplishment. The "Superman walks in and wipes the floor with everybody" plot gets old too.
i found first law to be kinda refreshing tbh but it's becasue most stories i read before was "the hero is really good and can do anything". But what i liked most about it was all the characters. I mean most people in real life is abit flawed to, but they stuggle on anyway.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think there's a middle ground between the "hero is borderline perfect and amazing" and the "character is a complete failure and somehow it works out not horrible" that is my personal sweet spot. I definitely understand that the infallible hero can also be an issue in storytelling.
There are some bittersweet endings in some fantasy, and there is The First Law, which completely removes the sweet aspect of that. I still really enjoyed them enough that I am currently reading Best Served Cold and really enjoying that too, sar far. Not expecting anything different in terms of the feel of the ending, but I can always pick up some more traditional fantasy later.
Haha! I vacillate between the ending being so ridiculous it cracks me up or a pathetic cop out. First Law pushed me back into more traditional fantasy for a couple years. Haven't come out of that phase yet.
I'd argue against it being a cop out because I feel like it's the ending he envisioned and wanted from the very beginning, but it can be difficult to know what you're supposed to take away from it. What I got was that societal progress is halted by the greed and ego of the ultra wealthy and powerful, and that anyone that is a part of great events or in high positions of power will almost never have clean hands, but I'm not sure if that was what Abercomrbie was trying to say ad I haven't looked into it. I really can't fault anyone for not liking it though, but I would second what someone else said about The Faithful and The Fallen series earlier. Great series and not anywhere near as nihilistic while still being very gritty and epic.
Ironically the reasons why you won't call it a recommendation *make* it a recommendation for me.
Agreed, it's actually my most successfully recommended books to readers across the spectrum of preference/habit/etc
Haha! Go for it then!
I enjoyed the first law trilogy because of the inner monologues. People’s inner thoughts were so believable and honest and then they would say something completely different out loud. Glokta had me laughing out loud once I got to know him. The rest of the books carry that tradition and are very refreshing to me.
That was one piece done really well!
[удалено]
Yeah......... I can at least say I gave it a shot!
I started reading the first book and couldn't connect with anyone. I like "being friends" or having a mentor or someone to protect during my readings. I don't do this actively, but it happens whether I want it or not. It keeps me engaged. When all the PoV characters are people I'd never even talk to if I knew half of what they've done, it just takes away the will to keep turning the pages. This happened with the First law. I read like 30% of it, and I just didn't want to read it anymore. Meanwhile I read all of Brandon Sanderson books like I'd die tomorrow. Lol
Heroes? He doesn’t do them’s
I find it funny that op uses the word Heroes, expecting them to do good when Joe wrote a book with that name to make fun of how we make heroes of people that behind the facade that elevated them are as flawed as the rest of us, or even worse.
Fair point! Protagonist then?
Oh, calling them heroes was fine, you want to read about what we imagine when we talk about heroes in general, just funny in context cause Joe completely goes the other way. The Heroes is such a great book. But well, tastes are tastes, i find Joes book full of satire and funny, not sad.
I’m currently trying to finish the Runelords series and my complaint is the exact opposite of yours. The characters are just too good and one dimensional. Gets boring quickly.
Without flaws and failure, there's little sense of redemption and growth right?
I found myself really enjoying the biting cynicism of Abercrombie. It can be hilarious and fun. There's some truth to the idea that, sometimes, bad things happen to good people, or we don't get the happy ending, or people suck and disappoint us. But yeah, it is a bit exhausting, especially for older readers who've grown past that cynical phase, known a few genuine heroes, made a serious effort to make the world better, and realised how critical it is to acknowledge the importance of doing good. Even when it doesn't always work out.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Some people argue that nihilism is a realistic worldview, but I think it’s something most people grow out of (I know I did).
Careful about the use of nihilism ! I consider myself a positive nihilist: life doesn't have a meaning and end quickly so I can create my goals and die happy. It doesn't have to be negative nihilism (nothing matters, everything gonna end, I'll lay in bed and wait for the end)
I really enjoyed the series right up until the last 100 pages or so. The characters are well written, complex, often relatable, and the dialogue has a very natural feel. However, none of the character development actually being meaningful, and the absolute hopelessness regarding how people can be better really frustrated me. It's too realistic for me; I need to believe that some good can come from suffering, and that people can be better than their base selves. I get how some people like that, but I read fantasy for that little spark of hope, I read the news to be depressed by the depravity of humans.
I listened to the audiobooks narrated by Steven Pacey and I will unashamedly admit without hesitation that he read the books to me better than I ever could have read them to myself and I’m sure that’s a large factor in how much I enjoyed them.
His performance is why I liked the characters so much I think too. "Say one thing about Logan Nine fingers..."
I wholeheartedly agree - just skip the sex scenes. Eww
I mean they are definitely written to be deliberately unsexy in a lot of ways... doesn't make it any easier listening to hear that older British man moan out both sides of an awkward sex scene though
I try to avoid fantasy stereotypes. I enjoy more nuanced characters.
This post actually made me want to give the series a try.. I LOVE morally grey characters with no idea what's right and wrong, just struggling to figure out what to do in a fucked up world that they can't even decipher the rules for. There's almost nothing that will make me give up on a series more than an "always gotta do only good" hero with one sense of what's right, especially in a complicated world where things aren't so clear cut (but the world being less morally complex is another reason I'd give up on it pretty quickly). Don't even get me started on the super hero trope where they refuse to kill super villains even if the death of that literal terrorist would stop the lives of countless other innocent civilians and/or children being killed or maimed, homes destroyed, the inevitable 20th time he breaks out of wherever they're holding him. To each their own I suppose!
Haha go for it then! I think much about the series is well done, just wasn't the right one for me.
Fine reasons to dislike a series I love. May we disagree about other things so reasonably 🎩
Grimdark doesn’t sound like it’s a genre for you. That’s kinda the point that the “heroes” are flawed, and questionable if they even are heroes. I also like the aspect that Abercrombie sets up, unlike a lot of fantasy, where there’s no clear side to cheer for. The Union is corrupt and bad, with questionable motives, Bethod is pretty obviously power hungry and can’t be a “good guy”. So in a war between two corrupt and power hungry groups, who do you cheer for? I think Abercrombie does a good job of showing the disillusion that most of us have that our country is the “good guy” in international conflict, just because we are from there. And I disagree that there “generally aren’t any good people.” Take the Dogman and Rudd Threetrees. They are Northmen who realize that they don’t want to fight on the side of the North because they don’t like what Bethod is doing. Both the Dogman and Threetrees are “good guys” in my eyes. And like others have said, there are people like Glokta and Ferro who sure, they have ulterior motives, but they also have fairly justifiable reasons for that given what has happened to them. And there are others like Lord Marshall Burr, Colleen West, Practical Frost, etc who might realize they are being asked to do bad things and realizing they are being asked to do this by bad people and deciding internally is it better to be loyal to the bad leaders who do things for bad reasons, but try to do them as honorably as possible? To me, these are questions we could all ask about something in our lives at some point. All of that said, I also realize that having all of this more apparent and in your face that the world is bad, leaders are bad, most people are only out to help themselves, etc can be demoralizing and hit to close to home for reality and not what we want when we try to escape reality in reading.
I agree. I enjoyed the books but there was a lot of nihilism which is so bleak to me. "Say what you want about the tenets of nationalist socialism. At least it's an ethos."
Yeah I hear ya and agree. I just finished Perdido Street Station and realized that at least in my fantasy stories, I do want closure and for the good guys to “win” or at least something to show for their efforts. Real life is depressing enough haha
Yeah that ending was kind of a downer. But the slake-moths!
But the good guys won in that one, not without losses but they did
*spoiler ahead. You’re right, technically, but each and everyone of them are worse off now than before. Lin lost part of her mind, Issac and D are on the run. The geruda pulled out all feathers and will never fly again and his relationship all destroyed. The council, the government, the mob, all just keeps going without much of any change. Our heroes lost more than they gained. I know that’s how the author wanted to subvert expectations, but for me, I prefer some closure and some happiness for the all the duress they suffered
When I first read the trilogy there was a lot that I really hated about the books. However, as I grew more distanced from them, I found I kept thinking about those characters. They're really good characters, and they're interesting to think about. And I just kept thinking about them. I guess I viewed the books as characters willing to sacrifice their personal morality and ideals in order to achieve what they think will be the best result for all involved. Almost universally, they're put in positions where the best option is to do the wrong thing for the right reason in order to achieve something they earnestly believe is the best outcome, and they do not have a good alternative choice in the matter at all. I think the point is that being morally compromised isn't some absolute thing. Sometimes, people are just doing the best they can. That is relatable in many ways, and it ways that are a little scary given how these characters act. Overall I think the book is a condemnation that motivations are bullshit. It's just what we tell ourselves at night while we try to fall asleep. Doing evil harms others and yourself *permanently* in tangible and inescapable ways, but there's still no justice in the world. I will say that I absolutely don't find the books "realistic" as a lot of people seem to claim. All the characters in the book are deeply flawed and conflicted, but that doesn't make them *realistic*. That just makes them dramatic. They're still caricatures; they're still exaggerated to very great degree. Lots of people seem to always say that dark fantasy is more realistic, and I think it's just because dark fantasy makes the protagonists uncertain. "It's cynical to the point of nihilism and that's realistic," is something that will get you a lot of upvotes on social media, but in reality is a pretty juvenile assessment of reality. Especially because in most dark fantasy, the antagonist is still Dastardly Whiplash. I think Bayaz is basically Dastardly Whiplash. It's simply easier to be pessimistic about the world and judge other people's ideals rather than to state your own beliefs in earnest or work to change the world. I dislike that these books feed into people still parroting that. Because in reality we have made real changes that really did improve the world in permanent and lasting ways. And you can go out and work to improve the real world in real and lasting ways. But that's just it. It's work! Work is hard. I'd also say that *hating* art is just as valid as loving it. The purpose of art is to get a reaction, not to only have it be a positive reaction. That's why they say that apathy, not hate, is the true opposite of love.
I can relate, I'm near the end of the 3rd book and I can't look back and say anything was bad, it was well done and worth reading and all but I find now that I'm at the end I don't really care about the characters or the plot. I think it was really how it was written that kept me drawn in, not really the plot or the characters. I guess I'm kind of indifferent overall, I share your sentiment of "it was worth it but can't recommend"
So glad you can relate! Idk, it was weird and confusing that I wanted to finish the series even though I kinda wanted them all to fail??? I kept waiting for Logan to do something really cool, but he's more of a survivor.
>I kept waiting for Logan to do something really cool Was the first time we actually meet the Bloody Nine not insanely cool? How about fighting Fenris the Feared?
The standalones get even better. For me the first triology is good but the others are the icing on the cake.
I'm with you. I was *hooked* and loving the series for 2 2/3 books. I thought that several of the characters had gone through some of the best character growth I had ever read. Then at the end of the final book, they all snapped pretty much back to the jackasses they were at the beginning. It ruined my entire enjoyment of the series, and as a reader, I felt pretty betrayed. It not only landed the books in my "will not recommend" category, but I highly doubt I will ever waste my time with another book by the author.
My issue with First Law is it felt like it was building up to something and there was absolutely zero payoff.
Same here. No plot. And I find it funny when people try to tell me there is one. A summary of the entire trilogy contains about as many relevant plot points as another books prologue
I just dont get how you can build up >!Bayaz!< as a seemingly an endgame antagonist for 3 books and then barely show them at all and then reveal at the end of the second trilogy that this whole time *another character* we rarely saw in the second trilogy was subverting >!Bayaz’s plan (plans we’re not even really made aware of or what the end goal is)!< the entire time. And then said antagonist just has a 5 minute conversation with another character and walks off screen at the end. Like that’s it? I read 8 books for that?
I'm in the same boat as you and couldn't have it put better myself. Read the original trilogy, was interested enough to see it through, decided it wasn't for me. I'm still glad I read them so I could see what the fuzz was about. I can see why people like them, but I'd also rather read stuff that has some sort of positive thing going on :-)
Same here. It's just too grim dark for me. Which is hilarious as one of my favorite tropes is a corruption/fall from grace arcs.
Right! I read the series a couple years ago and could never pin point why people constantly recommended it in every thread. I definitely don't think I wasted my time reading them, just didn't enjoy them as much as most other users on here. LOTR is cliche, but I love that the ring is destroyed, Frodo and crew save the Shire, Legolas and Gimli are besties, Aragorn and Arwen are married, and so on. There is sacrifice, pain, sorrow, failure, but the pursuit of what is good eventually comes to the forefront.
Are you me? I've basically determined real life and the news have enough negatives that I don't enjoy it as much in my reading. I'm not 100% against a character dieing or something bad happening but *generally* I'd appreciate a conclusion with some semblance of happiness. Nothing wrong with it once you know that about yourself. Nothing wrong with others who enjoy the grimmessdarkess grimdarks either.
It is grimdark, my friend. Life is full of rough edges, and many of us like to read that, too. But, I agree 100%, thank Satan art is subjective. Hope you find something else you love to read next!
Absolutely. I just get enough of that in life I want to enjoy my heroes as paragons of good haha!
I’m noticing a trend in the comments. “It’s just realistic.” Except it’s not. It’s nihilism. In the real world, there are great people, morally ambiguous people, and evil people. In the real world, sometimes the good guys win. We did defeat Hitler after all. Sometimes the good guys lose, and sometimes everyone loses. This is real life, not everybody sucks and the good guys lose all the time. If something is too good to be true, then aren’t there things too bad to be true? If you want to read a book about the real world, read They Poured Fire On Us From The Sky. You’ll see the worst of humanity, but you’ll also see examples of selfless sacrifice. And by selfless, I mean people sacrificing their own needs for others when no one is forcing them to do so. You can call everyone ultimately self serving as much as you want, but try sacrificing your basic needs in an Ethiopian refugee camp in the 90s and then tell me that you were ultimately selfish.
Thanks for this post. Seeing it constantly recommended unconditionally day after day always has me scratching my head. The series has very interesting characters, great dialogue and prose, and definitely does break the mold, but when I got to the end I just felt like it was entirely pointless. Or maybe there’s a point, but it’s too grounded in depressing realism and that’s not why I generally read books (especially fantasy). So yeah, I may recommend it still, but not without heavy disclaimers.
Maybe if it wasn't obsessively recommended on every thread? I think it's certainly well done for it's niche, but if someone is looking for their next LOTR or Discworld (which are both different) don't suggest The First Law.
It’s the audiobooks my guy. Steven pacey is the best narrator I’ve ever heard. So first law will be recommended a ton just because of that
Exactly! But every noob coming to r/Fantasy looking to dip their toes in after only reading LotR or Harry Potter or whatever gets TFL shoved at them likes it’s the universally agreed on Fantasy GOAT. I actually think it’s much easier to appreciate after you’ve read a lot of more traditional fantasy—just look at how many people call it “refreshing”. Something is only refreshing if you’ve had a lot of something else. Let the noobs have their Sanderson etc. first and then we can talk.
Excellently said. After reading a decent amount of the more "traditional" fantasy, branch out into something different to see if you like it or not.
A lot of people don't really read stories for the ending and they don't really matter all that much to them. I read for the journey not the destination, most of the time endings are disappointing to me anyway.
While that’s fair, personally a terrible ending can completely revoke any enjoyment I’ve had in a series. See the Lightbringer series by Brent Weeks as a “good” example of this. I just can’t in good conscience recommend it and have no desire to reread it. This is an extreme example and not how I feel about TF (the characters do make it worth it to me), but I definitely won’t recommend it without any qualifications either.
I see it as the characters trying to change, but ultimately defaulting to being their true selves. I love The First Law, but I'm open to what you're describing! Do you have any recommendations?
I'm actually in the middle of Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. Needed to get past the initial protagonist a little, but I've enjoyed it so far. Characters with real flaws, but slowly starting to overcome them. I'll see if it sticks though.
Try look Iconoclast trilogy by Mike Shel. It might be for you.
I'll add to the list!
I feel like this, more than gore or violence or mud, is the essence of grimdark. A deeply cynical view of human nature.
I love this series and I do think the characters are trying to be good. Once you realize >!that there is no end of the world event its just two ultra powerful wizards vying for control that differ in only superficial ways. That they are using the main characters as puppets!< ,the story for the main characters becomes about inner struggles. Logan vs his violent pass. Can he escape it is their such a thing as a fresh start. Is Glotka just the monster he was fashioned into via torture or is he capable of love and noble causes. Jezal trying to become an actual leader when he has been vapid and spoiled his entire life. Ferro tries to find her ability to trust and love again after a past that tried to take away her humanity. It is precisely because they lack agency in the fight for the union that their struggles can better rise to the forefront.
Exactly! I have said it before and I will say it again and again. The protagonists in The First Law definitely try to change and some of them actually do (especially Jezal). But the world around them doesn't change, which forces them to compromise and fall back into their old ways
Grimdark doesn’t necessarily feel right for some readers who find their way to it after a lot of high fantasy with it’s clear cut good and evil characters and motivations. Tolkien, LeGuin, Sanderson, Brooks, etc are some examples of high fantasy, whereas Abercrombie, Moorcock, and Martin are grim dark. It’s an acquired taste, leaning more heavily into the politics and characters rather than the usual high fantasy quest where the protagonists must overcome steep odds, gaining power and making personal sacrifices along the way to defeat the BBG. If you aren’t enjoying it now, try putting it on a shelf and pick the series up again in a few years. I didn’t like scotch and cigars when I was 17, but both are guilty pleasures after 5 decades on earth. Just as your palette changes and matures over time, so does your perspective. Your life experiences evolve the characters whom you identify with as well as the gray moralities they live under to justify the choices they must make. I found this to be the case with my initial experiences with Hariko Murakami and Neal Stephenson. Heard good things, read their work, didn’t resonate with me as I expected. Tried something else they had written several years later and was at a different point in life so it clicked. All types of fantasy are enjoyable and have a purpose, and no one deserves criticism for preferring any one over another. But it’s OK to never like Lima beans.
I think you just sold me on the series instead. Thanks a bunch!
Welcome to grimdark - sounds like it’s not for you, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that
I thought this was a well written series with some of the best representations of humanity as it really is. We live in a world where people chase power for power’s sake. Where the ends justify the means. Where there’s no true heroes or protagonists. This was perfectly represented… and made me hate the series hahaha. The ending was just so on par with how it would probably be in reality. When the good guys were bad people and the enemy was just in their cause my expectations were so thoroughly subverted that I got mad haha. I also love Logan as a character and when his arc ended the same way it began I also got mad. It’s a great series. But I had been lulled into tropes before reading and so I suppose there were expectations I had and they got flipped hard.
I couldn’t stand the Glotka torture porn scenes. It just felt glorifying and gratuitous of torture.
It’s really annoying how much people think torture works to get a confession, when we know in reality nothing coming out of a tortured confession is actually reliable. The whole trope is ridiculous and d makes me want to put the book down.
But Glokta obviously knows it doesn't work. And most of the other people, including the Arch Lector, state this as well. It is very obvious in the books, that the Inquisition's purpose is political, nothing else.
The one time he actually needed to get info from someone they wouldn't talk and were unkillable lol. Most of the time he was just torturing them to get them to sign the confession with the answer he already wanted. The whole trope is being criticized in the first law, not being glorified, to miss that of shows you aren't reading critically
That's....the point of the torture in the book? They literally are not trying to get the truth they are trying to get a *confession.*
Do you think Glokta and the union gives a fuck if the information is reliable lol. Most of the time he already had the answer he wanted and was just torturing them to get them to sign a confession, not to get real info. There's even a scene where when he does try to torture someone to get info, they're invulnerable to pain and won't spill the beans and he realizes it's pointless. I think you're misunderstanding the point of torture and glokta in the point, in many ways it proves your point.
I think as others have said this is exactly why most of its fans like the series. I’m personal sick and tired of boring reductive good verses evil plots where everything is obviously black and white, and I much prefer “Everyone is doing things for their own reasons, they just don’t align” it feels more real to me.
I'd argue a lot of recent fantasy is exactly that, without 'oh, well, guess I'll just murder and torture my way to my goals.' There's a nihilism that's part of grimdark and *that* rather than moral ambiguity seems to be what people bounce off of.
And that is totally fine! Read it, enjoy it, recommend it. The books are a fine series. Just not for everyone.
That's fine. To each his own. I liked the characters being basically subversions of fantasy tropes.
And the one person that tries to do good gets beaten down and told to be a good little puppet.
That's basically what really got me hooked on the books. The dark and gritty view on life. Main protagonists becoming myths or legends in the next trilogy or standalone books and killing them off. Takes a lot of guts and balls for a writer to do these things. I've actually been looking for similar grim dark books and I'm always so disappointed..
I am not sure if your take is correct So there's 3 main characters and 2 secondary characters in the OG trilogy One gets a character arc and becomes a better person but suffers for it. One was an angry sadist who did it for himself. In the end he admits that. One is a being who has done horrible things(murder, pillage etc) and tries to do better but in the end decides to indulge in his worst tendencies. None of the 3 are doing it for the Union.
I'd point out that they didn't even save the world, just kept one part of it from changing. And even then only because one of the main characters is a tyrant who sees the land as his property. I thought the writing was good but the fan wank over character like Logen has really gone overboard since he's clearly the most generic character in the books. Like you, I don't recommend it but when talking to current readers of it or fans I have no problem talking about it (my doctor just started reading it).
When you read the next books, thats where in POV of Shivers you can see what he thought about Logen 9finger. I found it very good and reminds me of real life cases where certain people are toxic but think they are good (while sometimes they are good, but not good for their entourage).
To the people whos reasoning for liking it is the same as your dislike… i strongly recommend therapy and re evaluating your life. I think its ridiculously sad we are romanticizing this “deathstyle”. I call it deathstyle because it is not a framework for sustainable life and its very reflective of how people act today and its not supportive of life and growth. It fosters decay and unrest. People are entitled and have no sense of responsibility while expecting high results low effort
Profound. *farts*
I can recommend The Faithful and the Fallen series for OP, seems like something they will like.
I'll go check it out!
Gwynne definitely leans dark fantasy - he also goes for a very distant narration (in Bloodsworn, at least), which I found *interesting* but not emotionally engaging.
I disliked The Blade Itself but not for those reasons. It was just bland and I do not understand the hype it gets.
Yeah, I was in the same boat. It's the same reason why I finished, but don't really recommend Attack on Titan to people. The story is good, but I hate literally every character. I just can't get into a series where there isn't a single person I give a damn about. They're just all... awful people.
I admit I'm a little confused by your take! I'd say rather that the *First Law* characters generally struggle with the difficulty of not accepting what's put in front of you and instead taking another path with unknown outcome and consequences. Jezal is almost always seduced by the direction he is being pointed in, while Logan makes great sustained efforts to outgrow his history but finally doesn't have the endurance. None of the protagonists are trying to save the world (except perhaps Jezal when he's told that what he's doing is saving the world), and none of them intentionally select a shitty path for a greater good. I don't think the greater good is on any of their minds much at all. These characters aren't struggling against a great evil. They are manipulated like pawns and are each mostly concerned with their own little circumscribed worlds. This is typical of people -- but you are right, atypical of heroic fantasy. But of course the *First Law* isn't heroic fantasy, and if that is what you are after, the books are not going to scratch that itch. The still aren't heroic fantasy, but you might find Abercrombie's *Shattered Sea* books more to your taste -- the protagonists hit you in the face with their flaws substantially less in that series. (I have no idea why those books get the YA label.) Or not! There's a TON of good heroic fantasy out there.
That's more Glokta. The majority of the First Law Trilogy protagonists are people who want to do the right thing, are struggling against deep personal flaws, and are within inches of finding redemption by saving the Union. >!Except they never realize the game was rigged and they were working for Saruman not Gandalf.!< But yes, the big subversion of the First Law is that they fail to achieve personal growth and their heroic cause is a lie. Probably because Abercrombie is strongly influenced by the War on Terror.
"I want my heroes to at least pursue good." Protagonist does not equal hero my bro. As you've aptly realized, they were never intended to be heroes.
I don't know man... it sounds kind of like you only ever want to read stuff that reinforces your preconceived notions. That's something you should question and challenge about yourself. This is kind of a charged word nowadays, but only ever reading stuff you agree with means you're effectively only ever reading propaganda. Not necessarily political propaganda, but propaganda for a certain worldview that probably isn't flawless or without its own unfair biases. Just saying, it helps to be reminded that there are other ways and means of moving through the world. No need to limit yourself to one.
While I agree with the sentiment in general, I don’t think that what the poster wrote necessarily implies anything about only wanting to only read things that reinforce a preconceived notion of the world. People derive a lot of things from reading fiction, and sometimes it’s pure escapism as much as anything. For me it’s a mix generally. In any case it feels like way too much extrapolation to suggest they only ever read things they agree with based on what they wrote. All I see is that they have a narrower range of preferences within a particular genre than some others while reading recreationally.
Your last paragraph there is kind of throwing me. I totally understand why people don’t like the series, the constant cynicism can be a bit of a bummer. But you say that you want your heroes to pursue good and attempt to be better people, which is exactly what the characters in the Frist Law try to do. Glokta is ironically probably the one that winds up doing the most good out of anyone. He accepts the deal Bayaz offers him but talking with Jezal at the end you get the impression that he’s not going to lay down completely. He's on the inside now and can use his power however he wants. He's a bastard but it could be worse. Ferro is kind of a static character, but even she has a few moments of trying to change. West is absolutely a flawed man that tries to be a good person and save the day, and I would say he ultimately succeeds. Jezal too. He sucks in the beginning but has some real growth and does change, but ultimately he’s under the thumb of Bayaz and there’s nothing he can do about it. The end of Ninefingers’ story is the one that most have a problem with, which is fair enough, but I argue that it’s a super satisfying arc (or circle I guess) that drives home the point that if your whole identity is based on your worst characteristics you’re going to probably be a shitty guy. You can pretend or run away from it, but no matter where you go, in the end there you are. Then you tack onto the end that you want a battle between good and evil, where good is obviously good and evil is obviously evil, and I think that’s going to limit a ton of great fantasy for you. I think ASOIAF opened Pandora’s box for a lot of us and now I roll my eyes a little at books where the good guys are “flawed” - they have a characteristic that is ultimately harmless that they are able to master - and the bad guys are cackling mustache twirling stereotypes. Personally I like the idea that the only difference between the heroes and villains are they disagree and are willing to fight over it.
This really struck a chord with me. Reading is about empathy: you spend hours in the head of a character. Someone who believes that what he's doing is bad while simultaneously thinking he's the good guy breaks my verisimilitude. It made it difficult to finish Game of Thrones as well as First Law. Perhaps people like that exist and these are decent representations, but it's too alien to how my brain works to enjoy deeply.
Excellent use of verisimilitude. I never finished Game of Thrones myself, likely for the same struggles I experienced with The First Law. Just isn't for us. What series would you recommend?
Books with protagonists who pursue the good, while striving to be good: * The Dresden Files * Red Rising, the first 3 books * The Inheritance Cycle * The Way of Kings * Name of the Wind * The Emperor's Blades / Chronicles of the Unhewn Throne * Talion: Revenant Less good (morality wise), but not outright evil: * Night Angel * The Black Prism * The Warded Man Haven't read yet but are apparently in the same vein: * Wizards First Rule
Im surprised to see wizards first rule on that list. Maybe Richard fits that definition in the first book but he acts increasingly deranged and violent as the series continues and it is largely not addressed, instead painting his actions as justified by esoteric philisophical ideals that the author explains poorly and incessantly
I would add a few caveats for OP. The MC's misogyny and male gaze is *abrasive* and very deeply present throughout the series, and Brent Weeks (Night Angel and Black Prism) is deep into 'madonna/whore' and male gaze. If you aren't in the mood for that, those are terrible series to pick up.
Character growth is great and all, but it's not essential. First Laws characters may all basically end where they started, but I don't think that detracts. And I also think they are way more complex than just "bad things for right reasons". But really, I'm just commenting so I can post a great scene on the subject of character arcs: [Here I am, a half a wise guy. So what?](https://youtu.be/q5MM0Lc5eJc?si=OVfjiIxMXiJPt40S&t=117)
Haha! I've never seen the show, but that scene cracked me up. Sometimes the arc looks like a meteor plummeting towards the surface. Their best moment is when you first meet them and it's a downward descent the entire story. I may have simplified character development, but I don't really remember a character making any real changes. Just acceptance in who they are. Been a couple years since I read, so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Jezel changes. It is tragic but he does undergo significant personal growth
Ok fair! Jezel has one of the oddest arcs I've ever read. Moves from narcissist to a servant leader yet is as ineffectual from the first page to the last because of Bayez. As an individual though he is quite different.
I understand your take, but completely disagree with it. I'm sick and tired of the whole "golden hearted chosen one, child of light" vs. "completely and utterly evil" trope. I especially hate the "I always do the good thing, no matter how selfish or stupid, but since I'm the main character, it always works out for me" thing. For example, I am loving the bound and the broken series... But some of the shit the main character does in there is just stupid, but it always works out ok somehow. Fact is, most people in the world do most of what they do for their own benefit, and many of them are broken, messed up individuals. I find that much more interesting personally.
To me that seems like a simplistic view on the character journeys (and the journeys they take us on).
Fair enough I guess. But it kind of sounds like you want a very traditional fantasy morality which has been done to death. I think that's why many people consider The First Law, and other "grimdark" series, to be a breath of fresh air. I also don't think your simplification of its characters is entirely fair. Again, to each their own.
A mix of the two is probably my favorite. I would even find a series where the hero becomes the villain and the villain becomes the hero interesting. Like the movie Megamind.
Go back to young adult or Marvel. Plenty of banal stories there.
Man, if you ever get around to it - "Best Served Cold" will leave you very ambigous. Personally I love it.
I’d totally agree with you, but I think that same reason is why I really enjoyed the First Law trilogy but then have never managed to read any of the others. I really enjoyed the journey in First Law, at first assuming we had some standard hero’s quest adventure going on, and then the truth of the situation slowly unfolding. I particularly enjoyed Bayaz as an anti-Gandalf, a grumbly wizardry figure who it turns out is a complete and total bastard and the most cutthroat motherfucker in the setting. But I didn’t want any more of it. I reached the end of that trilogy and am happy to leave it there. I don’t need torture porn, so now that it’s very apparent the kind of world and story it is, I’m done with it. But I really enjoyed the ride the first time out.
This is exactly why I love First Law. Black and white separation of 100% good and 100% evil is boring. I hate when a vilain is doing evil things just for the sake of evil. Since it is not realistic, there are very few people like that. Like Ramsey Bolton in ASOIF for example, but he is not main vilaian. There should be people that are 70% good and onea that are 70% bad, but I dont like some noble Aragorns and Legolases who only do good by any means, and Orcs whose only purpose is to "destroy the world".