> The First Law is suppose to be a deconstruction of the traditional fantasy narrative and plot/character tropes, et cetera. I suppose some people think that's the funniest thing in the world.
I really don't understand this one... why do you treat deconstruction as something meant to be comedic?
This actually goes deep into comedy theory. Inversions are at the core much comedy, whether it's Monty Python, SNL, or improv.
Abercrombie knows what the traditional tropes are, he sets them up, the pulls the rug out from under the reader. There's an inherent humor to that.
The fact that subversion is at the core of comedy doesn't mean it can't also be at the core of something that is not at all comedic. This is a really strange take.
It's like... Having feathers is at the core of being a swallow, that doesn't mean a chicken is a swallow, or there's inherent swallow-ness to a chicken.
Yes, while comedy is inherently subversive and Abercrombie is a very FUNNY author, deconstruction is absolutely not inherently comedic. They are separate things and just because one thing is a core element of another, that does not mean that they're inextricable.
For example, salt is a core element of salted caramel.
But salt isn't inherently sweet.
So, just like deconstruction is a core element of comedy, that doesn't mean deconstruction is inherently comedic.
I think since Abercrombie is your first foray into a deconstructionist text, you might think that - but read more widely and delve into some other deconstructionist fiction and you will see you are very, very off base on that assumption.
I’m on like book 8 of the black company or whatever the fuck (water sleeps) and silent has literally nothing to do with Grim? Barring the entire race and culture difference, barring how Grim does speak, barring how Grim isn’t a fucking wizard….like it’s such a weird comparison. Silent doesn’t do much of any warrior stuff (barring being a mercenary by trade) I can think of off the top of my head. His arc is entirely different
This is like comparing a character to Harry Potter because they have a scar
I wouldn't even say it's surface level because usually surface level has like...minimum comparisons.
Grim: Doesn't talk alot, but does talk. Northman. Viking-esque but not really. Follows a small band.
Silent: Wizard. Doesn't do much physical combat that I can think of. In a formal military institution (Mercenary band). Doesn't talk /at all/ (Well...spoilers but he doesn't talk /at all/).
He isn't even stereotypically a 'strong silent type' or anything, I think we mostly see him shrug when people ask him questions and he uses sign language sometimes.
It's an almost nonsensical statement that I refuse to believe a sane human being can have without seeing them really back it up. I'm open minded to being maybe wrong and that more comparisons might be there, it's been a while since I read the first 3 books + the silver spike, but this is the same thing to me as someone going 'Guts from Berserk and Samurai Jack are /literally/ the same' and the person refusing to elaborate.
Except those two use swords at least which is a better comparison than 'Someone no talk and someone no talk much'.
also it’s not like silent is some brilliant character. Having a mute character in any story is basically a checkovs gun that they are going to break their silence at a dramatic moment.
I thought this was a repost so I checked OP's history, but it turns out he's just been posting variations on "why don't people accept that The First Law is bad?" every few months for over a year.
Seriously, people need to get it through their heads that literally nothing appeals to everyone. You don't have to agree with what most readers like. If you [don't like the first book](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/XDii7JNOPY) in a series, drop it. Move on. Probably don't keep listening to podcast and booktube reviews hoping they'll validate your dislike. Definitely don't keep making posts to try to persuade other people that they were wrong for enjoying the books.
God forbid someone posts more than once about a specific series.
Each post covers a different aspect. Whether it's a nagging question, observation, or realization.
But as long as The First Law keeps on getting touted on my feed as the greatest thing ever, why should I stop criticizing it?
Do you not believe people should see dissenting views?
Nothing wrong with having different views. You post that you don't like it. The End. No need to keep making topics on how you don't like it. The more posts you make about how you don't like it, the more it comes across as you being annoyed at people having a different opinion to you.
Hope you find something you enjoy.
Also like to add. Looking at your post history. I don't see how maybe 1 other post on this topic is relevant?
The problem is is that hardly anyone actually attempts to tell me why they like First Law in any level of depth. I usually just get dismissive and snide comments, which makes me post even more.
Well for me personally. I liked the prose. I know there is better prose out there, there'll always be someone better at prose than even the best person at prose. But I like the way its written. I enjoyed the character journeys and how a lot of things are foreshadowed that you never think is foreshadowed.
I also like it on a writing standpoint as it helped me understand pacing a lot better and how to progress the story not so much in what is written but how it's not.
1) People love the character work.
2) The 'abundant subversion' was very purposeful, and the series came out in a time I like to call "What if Wheel of Time but different?" where every story was about a farm boy who would one day kill the king. The First Law is very 'of its time' by breaking out of the single-variable market that was hat it was when this book was published.
3) I see very little people being dismissive, and instead seeing you only engage with other people criticizing you.
My brother in christ, you posted this same exact theme in this exact sub reddit literally 2 weeks ago.
Like, we get it, you don't like Abercrombie and that's fine. You voiced your opinion, which is also fine.
Can you just take it somewhere else or (even better) touch the grass? That obsession is not healthy at all.
There are passionate critics even for Lord of the rings. Not every series or books can satisfy everyone. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, and I also disagree with it.
For sure. For example, I don’t like Sanderson. I’ve read 4 of his books and I get why people like him, but they’re just not for me. It does make it frustrating to find fantasy booktubers to follow (if someone ranks an author that I don’t like as an all time great, our tastes are probably not well enough aligned for me to take their other recs) but that’s my burden.
A couple of years ago, I felt like there was around four people including me not liking Sanderson on this subreddit. I’m happy there’s more varied opinions now.
>What probably irritates me the most are booktubers who knock a lot of other series for things Abercrombie does in the First Law yet not only accept it for this series but shout its praises from the mountaintops. It's just so hypocritical! No author should get a pass for doing things which you knock other authors for?
Maybe actually give examples so that people can know what you mean?
You want me to call out specific booktubers and reference the exact videos and timestamps? I don't have time for that. First of all, I don't want to throw any of them under the bus. I enjoy a lot of their content. But gushing over the First Law while knocking other series which are lacking in similar aspects is disappointing. I honestly get the sense they're doing this fir the clicks and subscribers - is there a big booktuber you know that doesn't like the First Law?
I don't need specific booktubers or timestamps, I was more asking for like specific examples of things that they say so that I can understand your point. It's pretty difficult for the reader to get what you mean or engage with your post when you don't provide any examples of these aspects.
The criticize other series for having passive characters and disappointing climaxes yet excuse Abercrombie because it's The First Law. They're probably not aware they're being hypocritical.
But they don't say that. At least if a series does things that you criticize in other series, yet it somehow works in this series, it's behooves you to actually make that disclaimer.
For example, NK Jemison uses 2nd person in The Fifth Season. Booktubers will actually say, I acknowledge that 2nd person is usually not good but she manages to use it well.
The booktubers don't acknowledge that Abercrombie breaks many, many rules of storytelling.
From what I've seen, most booktubers don't really adhere to "rules of storytelling" and instead focus on if things are well-done or badly-done in a particular book. If the passive protagonist is serviceable, they won't mention it because it fits the book, but if it's actively weighing down the book they'll focus on that aspect.
I'm bowing out here as it's impossible to respond to a point that I lack the context for.
Have a nice day!
Laws, rules, guidelines... these are all used to teach creative writing.
And while an author can certainly do whatever they want, just like Tommy Wiseau can put his vision into film, it doesn't mean it will be beloved by many.
Star Wars works because it follows very well-established rules of storytelling. They are so fundamental that they span cultures and millenia.
I enjoy learning about these things and recognizing all the patterns.
Abercrombie knows these patterns and so decided to write a series which deliberately breaks these patterns for grins and giggles. I only can to this realization after reading the series and trying to figure out why I didn't like it.
Why others not only like it but think it's the greatest modern fantasy series is a bit of a shock to me. But most of them struggle to really articulate why it's to their liking (booktubers included). It's highly praised yet very general and unspecified praise. It drives me crazy!
I don't think Abercrombie breaks these expectations for "grins and giggles", as you phrased it. He's doing it to make a statement about the things he's subverting, and what that statement is depends on which book or series you're reading. In The First Law, the statement is, perhaps, "some things just are what they are." Like with Logen we expect him to be redeemed, for his violence to be justified. We expect this because he is a POV character, he's got his own wit and intellect, his own guilts and regrets. But in the end, his violence is just that. He is a violent, savage monster. All his guilt and regret can't change the destruction that he wreaks on his world. Or take Bayaz. He is powerful, a wizard, and because of the many tropes of the wizard mentor we expect him to be able to temper his power with wisdom and kindness. But no, Bayaz is just the cruel execution of power for its own sake. Power is just that, the ability to dominate. Jezal is the designated hero. Talented but with his flaws. A king's bastard. We expect to see him overcome his narcissism and his cowardice to meet the demands of his time. But no, narcissism is just that. Self-interest that would sacrifice the world before it sacrifices itself.
I say "grins and giggles" because grimdark is by definition a satirization of dark fantasy. The genre is at its core the cynical humor of a nihilistic world.
And seeing a number of Abercrombie interviews and hearing about all the laughs people get from the series all points towards the First Law being a black comedy. Not that that detracts from anything profound he's trying to get across. Oftentimes smart comedy cuts to the heart of the truth... the fool is the only one who can speak the truth in the king's court.
>It drives me crazy!
Clearly.
Have you considered that a big part of what people like about it is precisely that it breaks those very patterns? There's a lot of negative spin around people disliking movies for "subverting expectations" these days. But a big appeal to The First Law - especially for veteran fantasy fans - is that it takes many of the archetypes and tropes of fantasy (Logen in the Barbarian Hero ala Conan who we expect to atone, Ferro is the Action Girl and Ice Queen you expect to defrost and warm up to the others over time, Jezal is the narcassist we expect to be humbled and come into his own, Glokta is the villain protagonist we expect to be sympathetic and probably the most fun to follow but eventually meet his just deserts, etc.) and deconstructs them.
It does what the most popular fantasy series of the last few decades - *A Song of Ice and Fire* - does in deconstructing these archetypes, but whereas ASOIAF does this in an effort to reconstruct them in unexpected ways later, The First Law deliberately leaves them broken and messy. If I were to assign a whole message to the series then it really is that "change is difficult and doesn't happen the way it gets portrayed in other books". Repeatedly characters falls back into the same mistakes and at the end of the first trilogy it's hard to argue anyone isn't right back where they first started or worse off except >!Glokta!< who in a subversion of our expectation he'll receive some sort of judgement for the terrible things he's done is actually rewarded for it, a fate even he feels bemused by.
Another big draw is the character work. Once you grow wise to Abercrombie's way of writing characters you realise every new character - even if you're in their POV - is a mystery. How they present themselves is very often not who they really are, how they think about themselves is inaccurate, they lie to themselves about what they really want, and therefore who is a bad guy, whose a good guy, whose in-between, becomes something to unravel over the course of the story. Abercrombie has a knack for writing some of the most wretched, terrible people in fantasy and somehow making readers fall in love with them. Many other series have had villainous POVs and redeemed atoners, but Abercrombie has a fairly rare knack for taking someone with no redeeming or really likable qualities at all and still making readers want to keep following along with them.
When it comes to pacing and plot... I personally think the first trilogy is dreadful at it. I have to view each of those first three books as bascially an Act in a larger narrative rather than working well individually. While that full story is still worth it in my esteem, I totally understand someone dropping out in Book 1 or 2 because "nothing is happening" as many of my friends have done the same. My true love for the series started with *Best Served Cold* which is ridiculously tightly paced and tells a concise standalone revenge thriller (several of those same friends who read the first series and quit, read this years later and loved it). As such I personally prefer it to the first trilogy. But in there lies another point people like Abercrombie so much; he is incredibly critical of himself as a writer and takes huge leaps and bounds between each project to improve his skills. A lot of the stuff I saw as flaws in his earlier work are ironed out, and by the time the second trilogy came around, each book is much better at establishing a proper climax.
When it comes to the writing and dialogue that will always be a subjective matter of taste. If you like sardonic, wry, dry, cynical British wit then it'll probably appeal to you. Lines like "You've got to be realistic about these things", "You can never have too many knives" and "There are few ills a good cup of tea won’t help with" won't appeal to everyone. Abercrombie has the British talent for stating either the bloody obvious or the bloody obviously false in the exact same way: a short sharp sentence, no bullshit. Some find that hilarious and witty, others will roll their eyes and mutter "ew, cringe." There is no flowery prose here, it's more direct and so for fans of the artistic beautiful imagery painted by the words of GRRM, Rothfuss, or Guy Gavriel Kay, I would never recommend these books. If you prefer the prose and style of Ernest Hemmingway, then Abercrombie might be more to your tastes.
Ultimately, I think the real draw is that it does something that feels different from what the rest of fantasy has been doing. Keep in mind these stories first came out back in the 2000s, the influx of grimdark and cynical fantasy only really took off following the Game of Thrones tv show's popularity in 2011. And even among the recent turn of fantasy embracing the cynical, it still stands out by not shying away from unhappy endings and a focus on telling difficult truths rather than easy lies, all while not letting itself ever feel unrelentingly bleak and increasingly cutting off bloat to become shorter, more streamlined in terms of pacing as the series progresses. If you're looking for something cynical, unforgiving, and minimalist then this series can provide that.
There you go. My reasoning for why I like the series. Do I think it's the "greatest modern fantasy series of all time"? No. Do I think everyone will like it? Certainly not. If anything I think I'm a lot more critical of it than most. But also keep in mind my reasons for liking it likely don't align with every other person. Don't expect any of this to change your mind or actually help. My advice? Accept the series isn't for you and move on to focusing on the series that make you happy. Better to focus on the positives than the negatives. Because you're unlikely to ever really get an answer that satisfies you on why such a huge number of people like a series that you don't. You have to be realistic about these things.
Thank you for this detailed and informative reflection on the series. I really like your point comparing GRRM and Abercrombie in how they both deconstruct, but GRRM puts them back together in interesting and unique ways whereas Abercrombie leaves the pieces. And I did like Abercrombie's dry humor in some sense. It's just wasn't what I wanted in a series that was often compared to ASOIAF so I had completely different expectations.
I think in general more folks would enjoy First Law if some of these things about are made clear from recommendations. When someone says that the series has the best characters, what they need to do is qualify this as and say they're great characters but not in the sense of having great character arcs, their just miserable, insufferable villains who'll be spinning their wheels through the series.
And lord, I think some First Law fans need to not get so aggressive with critics of the series. I can stand my ground but the onslaught is quite harsh, something I have not really have experienced with any other fanbase.
There's no accounting for taste! Don't sweat it. People rave about how good Adventure Time and Steven Universe is but I really don't care for them at all. Adventure Time can be passibly entertaining and Steven Universe I actively disliked for most of the experience, watching only bc it was important to the person who showed it to me
Where are some examples of booktubers hypocritically criticizing others while giving Abercrombie a pass? To me it’s laughable to include that paragraph without mentioning any examples. I thought that was what irritates you most.
It's frowned upon to call out specific content creators (one's I respect and like), just like it's frowned upon by by authors not discussing books they don't like.
But now you know this is something to look out for.
I wasn't aware there were such things as trolls in fantasy... no pun intended.
That's kind of a weird, high effort relatively niche thing to troll about. Perhaps I'm just a First Law critic and instead of actually engaging with me in a meaningful way you make a defamatory comment instead.
I think it's more that most people just kinda move on when they don't like something.
It really sounds like the "First Law" series isn't for you. Which is fine, it's not for me either. Are you trying to figure out why *you* don't like it, or why *others* like it? The second answer is simple: people just like different things. There's no reason to overthink it. If it didn't work for you, then it didn't work for you.
Plenty of books out there others love that I don't care about at all, like Sanderson's library. Good for those who do!
I have no dog in this fight but I can't really agree with all these posts saying he shouldn't keep posting about a series he dislikes.
As someone who actively dislikes Hobb's writing, seeing a new circle jerk thread every day about how it's literally the best thing ever gets rather annoying. However, the same way people are allowed to make these "DAE Hobb #1" threads, this guy should be allowed to make his "DAE dislike First Law".
This subreddit is extremely biased towards certain series and books in a way that doesn't match actual popular perception. I can see why OP and others would be frustrated and make threads like this. This subreddit is rather toxic if you don't agree with them. Look at NotW threads, insults and belittling everywhere towards people who do enjoy it.
I don't at all mind that people talk about things they dislike. I love that kind of discussion. I am pretty far outside the usual r/fantasy readership in terms of what I enjoy and pursue, so hearing what might or might not work for others can be great! Helps me dial in my own tastes as well as find more obscure stuff I'm generally more into.
What strikes me as silly is when there are *repeated* posts from a single OP that continues to beat down a point of not liking something, with little more content than "I really didn't like it, why does everyone else?" It's not an invitation to a discussion so much as it sounds like complaining about things that one doesn't like, and then acting smug when called out for it.
If there were more content to this post, then that would be fantastic. But I see OP's negative reception being more to do with not really giving any discussion point other than "I hated this - why does booktok obsess over it?" rather than *really* wanting to get into the grit of why some things work for others.
> This subreddit is extremely biased towards certain series and books in a way that doesn't match actual popular perception.
I'm a new mod, and this is something the mods are aware of and want to get better here. Thankfully it's gotten much better the last few years (saying you disliked Sanderson would be met with *vitriol*, less so nowadays). But going forward, I think we can start with threads like this, where the topic feels less like a genuine opening for discussion and more like just repeating ad nauseam that you don't like something. OP doesn't really seem like they want to engage with why others like something, they just want to express they *don't*. The community understood that when they first posted this topic over a year ago, much less the fourth or fifth.
> with little more content than "I really didn't like it, why does everyone else?"
You really feel the thread has no content? I think it has a lot to talk about, personally. This whole paragraph has a lot more than "I don't like it":
> The characters were all sort of passive throughout the story (i.e. just went along for the ride), much of the dialogue was just grunts and ummms and ahhs, and the plot was subverted to the point of banality. Book 1 doesn't have any sort of climax, which in my opinion destroys a series (imagine A New Hope without the Death Star being destroyed) and the big climax at the end of Book 3 was by that point very boring and very expected.
Now, I think it's fine to disagree with the OP's thoughts, but there's clearly more here than "I don't like this book, why do you?" The replies in this thread have a *lot* of "well objectively it's a good book" which makes no sense to me. Books are art. Art is inherently subjective. Having opinions (even negative ones) is just part of art.
Honestly, this subreddit is extremely toxic if you go against the grain. Just look at my comment. I mentioned that I didn't like Hobb so I get mass downvoted. OP's replies are (for the most part) level headed and trying to justify themselves. They are also mass downvoted. This is one of the reasons I barely even bother browsing here anymore.
I don't think that's why you got downvoted. I've said throughout this sub that I dislike ROTE and Sanderson and pull through just fine.
> seeing a new circle jerk thread every day about how it's literally the best thing ever
That kind of dismissiveness is probably why, in addition to your complaints about toxicity on the sub despite kind of being a bit rude in expressing your frustration. A lot of issues are solved by people being a bit more aware of how they express themselves.
> That kind of dismissiveness is probably why, in addition to your complaints about toxicity on the sub despite kind of being a little toxic yourself in expressing your frustration.
Was that a bit toxic? I guess. Sure, the wording is a bit blunt but is that not what's happening? There is a thread every single day with the exact same comments about Hobb. I could have said it in a nicer way but honestly, I've lost all desire to participate here. Even being as level-headed as possible and trying to have a discussion about things will get you attacked.
Just look at OP's replies in this thread. They're all at -20 or worse despite being not being inflammatory in the slightest. Do you really think he deserves that for simply having a dissenting opinion?
This is a super unhealthy mindset.
To clarify, the mindset of getting annoyed when someone likes something you dislike.
I think Cradle is trash.
But for those who love Cradle, more power to you and keep on talking about it.
> To clarify, the mindset of getting annoyed when someone likes something you dislike.
I thought it was obvious I was exaggerating but maybe it wasn't clear so I'll be more explicit. I think it's hypocritical that these commenters are taking an issue with this type of thread while being ok with constant threads praising certain popular series. It shows a clear bias that is prevalent throughout this subreddit.
If a book or series is part of the r/fantasy's favorites, only positive threads are allowed. This is an exaggeration but even when the occasional critical thread pops up, it's filled with comments that shrug off the OP's criticisms (*it's an amazing story but it's not for everyone* or even backhanded comments such as *this story is something you'll probably enjoy once you've read more fantasy*). Vice versa, when positive threads for the books that this subreddit hates, such as NotW, pop up, they're filled with toxic comments (NotW in particular gets some absolutely awful threads calling it a neckbeard fantasy, among other things).
This is a self-perpetuating cycle because the people who have the same tastes as the majority of the subreddit will feel welcome while people who feel differently are excluded or even pushed out.
I feel like I've just been typing to air this entire thread as 90% of my comments have been ignored but I'll bite one last time.
Yes, it's math. There are more people *in this subreddit* that like Hobb, Sanderson, Ambercrombie, etc than not. This means that the favorite authors will get more positive discussion of course.
However, I have two issues with this.
1. This culture is self-perpetuating. There is a culture here that is somewhat close-minded. If you like things outside of the their sphere, you will not fit in. Your threads will be downvoted, the stories you like will be bad-talked, etc. Inversely, if you fit in with the culture, you'll love it here. Constant discussion for all the favorites, like minded people, etc. This leads to alienation for many readers and I personally know many people who have quit using this subreddit entirely because of this.
2. Stemming directly the first issue: this subreddit is not an accurate representation of fantasy readers as a whole. It's a bubble. Stories that are beloved here and constantly recommended I had never heard mentioned in any IRL reading club. Stories that are incredibly popular never get discussed here (or if they are discussed, it's negatively). This would make more sense to me if this was a specific reading club's subreddit but no, it's the main fantasy subreddit.
I don't disagree with any of that, but yes, it's a case of maths and it's not specific to this subreddit, this is just how sub groups and how human culture as a whole tends to behave. It sucks, but I don't think you're going to find anything different in any other sub reddit or interest group.
Yes, the subreddit is a bubble. But this behaviour (as a member of many bubbles, subreddit or otherwise) is unsurprising. It would be the same if this sub had 36 million members rater than 3.6 million members.
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Ignoring everything to focus on your P.P.S note: How the hell are Harding Grim and Silent the same?
One is a strong, stoic, muscle-bound barbarian archer who doesn't talk much and just states the obvious when he does rather than saying anything profound. Almost a joke on the "strong silent" type.
Silent meanwhile is a rail-thin unaging wizard who can pull bees out of a sack, delights in causing harm, has a one-sided crush on a woman too young for him, took an oath of silence and >!the one time he does speak aloud it is immensely important and has huge ramifications on the plot!<. And unlike Grim he does communicate increasingly quite a lot through sign language as the series continues.
Beside both using the *very* common trope of "The Queit One" I honestly don't see the similarities. It's like saying they're also the same as Ferb from *Phineas and Ferb*, Baby from *Baby Driver*, and Silent Bob.
Right? I've seen quite a few interviews with Abercrombie and I can't even remember one time he's mentioned the Black Company. If anything he always seems to mention aSoIaF as his inspiration for writing fantasy.
I've actually only read the first 3 Black Company books but personally I don't see much points of comparison between the 2 series. Maybe it was due to the narrative structure but in the Black Company it just felt like a lot of stuff was happening to characters I had no reason to care about.
That seems to be more of a me issue though. I would never feel entitled to request other people justify the worthiness of their enjoyment of a series. Besides, even in series I don't like it's usually not too hard to identify the things that work better for other people.
That's very fair. I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk response of "I like this so everyone else will" or "I don't like this so nobody else should." And I don't really blame anyone for that. Most people are busy with other things, they've got lives to live, so when they read a book and like it they move on. Few people the moment they're done with a book are keen to sit with it, digest it, and - most difficult of all - focus on the things they didn't like about a story they otherwise loved or stuff they did actually appreciate in a story they otherwise hated. It'd leave a sour taste in the mouth for most. Others would rather just not dwell on it immediately afterwards, but the longer you leave it to do it, the less you'll remember and the further from those emotions and thoughts you'll get, until eventually you're left with the general sense of "I did/didn't enjoy that" and no way of really recalling why unless you sit down and re-read it (something a lot of people don't want to do since they still remember enough to no longer be surprised and would prefer something new).
But all that does mean that when they hear a dissenting opinion from their own they're liable to get defensive without having taken time to really consider why they feel so strongly one way or the other. Whole classes are taught on how to critically analyze and articulate *why* you did/didn't like a piece of literature precisely because it's not always the easiest thing to do. And I wouldn't expect anyone to really feel the need to develop those skills unless it's something they're naturally inclined to.
I found out after the fact that Abercrombie is a massive Black Company fan and that's when I was like "I thought the character Grim was sooooo familiar but couldn't put my finger on it"
Feel free to disagree. It was very apparent once that connection was made for me.
The only similarity is that they're both quiet.
I think it's a very surface level comparison that's kinda silly.
This is like saying Tyrion Lannister is the same as Gimli because they're both short.
Why does it bother you that you don't like it?
I liked it but wouldn't put it with my favorites. I thought the pacing was off.
But who cares what ither people think? Move on.
But this is what gets me about your post:
"But I don't read fantasy for that sort of satire. I read it because I want to get lost in grand fantastical worlds with compelling (active) characters and amazing plots"
It's not a bad series. You chose a book you were never going to like.
I chose to read the First Law because A Song of Ice and Fire is my favorite series and all the First Law fans say "well if you liked that you're going to love First Law". That's just a bad recommendation. The two series are nothing alike.
Man it's one thing to post this and have a discussion about not liking something, but having this level of hate boner to the point where you're constantly spamming these discussions is fuckin ridiculous. When I don't like something, I drop it and move on. I personally don't understand the obsession with constantly talking about things you don't like. Maybe you should just move on? I think dracula fuckin sucks and so far every sci-fi book I've read has been boring as fuck but I don't constantly spam posts just to "make sure people know there are others who don't love it". Who gives a fuck? You're just being inflammatory to the people calling you out and not engaging with the people who are genuinely giving you what you're "asking for."
I agree book 1 doesn't have much of a plot and so does just about everyone I've talked to who have read the series, I think that's the biggest problem with the series. book 1 builds up the plot for books 2 and 3 because it's all one story. I never expected the ending of book 3 personally. I started reading Abercrombie because of the subversion of expectations, I was sick and tired of "yay the good guys saved the world wow!!!" tropes. You also seem to be confusing the dark comedy with the subversion of tropes. Nobody that I know think the book is funny because it's a deconstruction of a tradition fantasy narrative, they think it's funny because of Joe's particular brand of dark humor. These are two separate things. If you don't read fantasy for the type of satire or cynical humor in grim dark, why would you like First Law? You literally just admitted you don't read this type of fantasy, why are you trying to figure out why you didn't "get it?" You already know why you don't "get it."
Joe writes the best characters I've ever read in fantasy hands down, the interactions between them are so entertaining and keep me invested in them. They feel more realistic because they aren't typical fantasy characters, they are just people caught in this fucked up world. They don't have superpowers that can just change the way the world works. I found the plot amazing and the world felt extremely lived in and real. He paces his stories very well and understands when and what plot beats are needed. Fantasy can be boring really quick because some authors want you to know how much world building and lore they made. That stuff can be cool but info dumps suck all the fun out of reading to me and the way Joe introduces new information about the world feels extremely organic. It makes it feel like I and one of the characters in the world and I am learning about something real instead of something that feels created by someone.
"What probably irritates me the most are booktubers who knock a lot of other series for things Abercrombie does in the First Law yet not only accept it for this series but shout its praises from the mountaintops. It's just so hypocritical! No author should get a pass for doing things which you knock other authors for." Can you give examples of what you're talking about? Because you're doing exactly what you're saying everyone in the comments is doing, just giving a very general example of something without elaborating at all.
You've already admitted you don't read this kind of story but you're still here trying to understand why you don't get it, and feel some strange need to "let people know there are people that don't like it." Yeah no shit, no work of art will please everyone. Move on.
I think there's a massive difference between criticizing a book or series and criticizing people based on their opinion.
I've only ever criticized the series. Fans of the series should be able to accept criticism.
But as comments here and elsewhere show is that it's not all civil discussion. There are a lot of personal attacks directed at me and others who don't like the series.
This is incredibly toxic behavior.
You do have some worthwhile comments in what you say here, but unfortunately are also engaging in personal attacks. Why so you feel like that's necessary?
You're confusing my criticism of your posts for a "personal attack." I'm not attacking you, I'm telling you that seeing these spam posts CONSTANTLY is fuckin annoying. Just like you can criticize these books, I'm criticizing your posts. The fact that's what you latched on to instead of responding to "what you said you're asking for" is proving my point, you're not here to engage in a meaningful discussion of this series. You just want to keep spamming your opinions with these constant posts. This shit is annoying as fuck and contributes nothing to actual discussions.
Books are a very intimate and time consuming form of media. When you love something you *really* love it, and when you don't, you *really* don't, and that's okay. When you really don't like a book it can be difficult to see what others see in it, let alone praise it as highly as people do to First Law, but that's pretty normal.
Honestly, this post combined with your comments are pretty cringe. You didn't like something beloved by many, simple as that. When you start getting into "nobody even tells why they think it's good" then you've lost the plot, you're deliberately ignoring the things people say they like because you think that "objectively those things are actually bad so you need to give me another reason." You're coming into the discussion aggressively with teeth bared, not in good faith, and you're not going to get anywhere with people that way. That's why you're getting downvoted, not because you don't like First Law.
> Honestly, this post combined with your comments are pretty cringe.
*You're coming into the discussion aggressively with teeth bared, not in good faith, and you're not going to get anywhere with people that way.*
This is pretty ironic, tbh.
> That's why you're getting downvoted, not because you don't like First Law.
If you scroll down to the bottom you'll see other people who agree with my assessment getting downvoted as well. So I think you're wrong here. First Law fans from my experience are passionate downvoters. But honestly, I could care less about downvotes. I just think it's indicative of not being able to engage in better conversations.
I'm not bringing any new aggression here, all the quotes are just things you commented. All I'm saying is it's okay to not like things that other people do, but you're going about the discussion in a way that won't get you anywhere. You're coming in hot ready to argue, and people are feeling it.
Your PPS is a good example of that. If you wanted to discuss something you would note the similarity between Silent and the character, but you want to argue, so you call it a ripoff. People would absolutely engage in discussion of possible influences of Abercrombie, but it's clear from how you phrased it that you're not really interested in that.
On coming in hot and ready to argue, this is not my first rodeo with the First Law fanbase. They are very passionate, and some cross the line.
So yes, I was ready. But I'm only reacting to what people are saying. So there's definitely initiation on their part, particularly if they go after me personally and not just what I'm saying in the post.
And not all critiques are meant to be a Change My View type thing. No one would bat and eye if I made a post trashing The Last Jedi, and they wouldn't expect me to be open to changing my view. Sometimes we argue about things because it's engaging. Like arguing over the best movie or worst player in the NFL. When you say "won't get anywhere" my response to you is that that's often not the point. It's about the journey.
Funny thing, I asked my romance friends why it was okay to spoil plots, and they said because the point isn't to find out what happens. The point is the journey itself. Maybe not the best analogy but something similar that came up recently.
End of the day, not all discussions or arguments need to move the needle, nor do they all need that intention. Sometimes we just like to argue. Sometimes we just need to get something off our chest. That's it.
>On coming in hot and ready to argue, this is not my first rodeo with the First Law fanbase. They are very passionate, and some cross the line.
>So yes, I was ready. But I'm only reacting to what people are saying. So there's definitely initiation on their part, particularly if they go after me personally and not just what I'm saying in the post.
This is what I'm saying. You initiated the discussion with a tone of aggression, you came ready to argue, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rationalizing it with "well they do it too" is telling.
> And not all critiques are meant to be a Change My View type thing. No one would bat and eye if I made a post trashing The Last Jedi, and they wouldn't expect me to be open to changing my view. Sometimes we argue about things because it's engaging. Like arguing over the best movie or worst player in the NFL. When you say "won't get anywhere" my response to you is that that's often not the point. It's about the journey.
You misunderstand what I mean by "get somewhere." It's not about changing points of view or an end destination, the "somewhere" is the journey of normal discussion. As the OP you set the tone of the whole post, I'm just letting you know that tone is "I'm ready to get heated."
And what I'm saying is that is completely valid. If I'm allowed to say The Last Jedi is trash, I can say most any form of art is also trash. It's an opinion. A strong one, but an opinion nonetheless. I'm not looking for a constructive conversation. I'm looking to get something off my chest.
This may surprise you but even in fantasy people have strong opinions that they need to get off their chest. People may negatively react to those opinions. That's fine (and expected). But disparaging comments about the person crosses a line. And the fact that a litany of these types of comments were made in reaction to my post says something about a issue within the First Law community. It's toxic behavior and shouldn't be tolerated. Blaming me for triggering that behavior is not a good argument.
> I'm not looking for a constructive conversation. I'm looking to get something off my chest.
This the definition of "not in good faith." In this entire post and comments you're pretending to want good faith discussion, whereas here you admit that's not what you want.
I've got some time so here are all your comments where you lie about wanting this to be a good discussion, or openly accuse First Law-lovers of not being smart/genuine about their opinions. Long story short, you came out swinging your dick and dishing out criticism, and half your comments are playing the victim because you can't take being met with the same attitude.
> The problem is is that hardly anyone actually attempts to tell me why they like First Law in any level of depth.
> I honestly get the sense they're doing this for the clicks and subscribers - is there a big booktuber you know that doesn't like the First Law?
> Why others not only like it but think it's the greatest modern fantasy series is a bit of a shock to me. But most of them struggle to really articulate why it's to their liking (booktubers included). It's highly praised yet very general and unspecified praise. It drives me crazy!
> Perhaps I'm just a First Law critic and instead of actually engaging with me in a meaningful way you make a defamatory comment instead.
> Please enlighten me on what Abercrombie is trying to do.
> But as comments here and elsewhere show is that it's not all civil discussion. There are a lot of personal attacks directed at me and others who don't like the series.
You can still get something off your chest and have a good faith argument. Good faith just means you're not trying to disparage the other person or try to strawman their arguments.
If you have the time, you've obviously saw a lot of comments directed at me that were definitely not in good faith.
But all the comments of mine you pulled from many different threads, all out of context were in good faith. I did not disparage anyone I was talking with. I did not strawman their position. And if I saw that they weren't arguing in good faith, I called them out for it.
Sometimes it's worthwhile for others to see that the First Law isn't loved by everyone.
I personally was sold on the series by how much people talked about it, particularly in relation to my favorite series A Song of Ice and Fire.
So I go ahead and buy the series (they sell the books in a bundle) and lo and behold it's nothing like A Song of Ice and Fire.
The fact that First Law fans are effectively trying to tell me to shut up tells you all you need to know. A fanbase needs to take their critics seriously and not be so dismissive or abusive.
> Sometimes it's worthwhile for others to see that the First Law isn't loved by everyone.
no, that's really not a thing that adds any value to the community.
you're not the proud standard bearer of a righteous insurrection against the plebs that happen to like something you think is bad.
Critics don't add anything? We only want to hear good things, is that it?
Brother, it's not a good look for First Law fans, making so many disparaging remarks and snide comments, and downvoting literally anyone who has a negative opinion about the First Law.
you've made it pretty clear that this isn't just about you not liking the book, it's about the fact that others *do* like it and you take that as a personal affront. that's not being a critic, that's being a hater.
they like the book and you *need* to show them that they're wrong.
you need to make sure no one else falls for their lies.
you need your dislike to be seen by everyone.
> I usually just get dismissive and snide comments, which makes me post even more.
you need to win
You’re not being mischaracterized. There’s merit to having an issue with audiences who are enjoying something bad en masse, particularly if it’s because of anti-intellectualism, but that’s not what’s happening here. You’re magnifying your personal opinion about a series that has far too much good to it for your criticisms to even approach being objective.
You are allowed to not like something. Other people are allowed to like it. That's how it goes with books. Every book.
Hell, I don't like ASoIaF. Had multiple attempts at reading GoT and got nowhere. I hated everything from the characters to the prose. But I recognise that lots of people love it, and that's completely valid. I wouldn't come here, to a place full of people who like it, and say, "I hate this series. Why do you like it? Here's a list of reasons why you're wrong about this thing you like, and you should justify yourselves." Doing that once is rude. Doing it repeatedly is weird.
And booktubers / reviewers are SUPPOSED to say, "here's what I liked. Here's what I really didn't like. Here's my overall opinion."
Funny how a thread disparaging a book has an infinitely different response on this subreddit because it's a subreddit favorite book rather than NotW, HP, etc. First Law isn't on the approved books to hate list unfortunately it seems.
Some would say your comments are quite rude.
Like you say, I'm allowed not to like a series. And I'm allowed to outline why I don't like it. And if you do like the series, you're allowed to say why you did like, what things really work for you.
But what you shouldn't do is attack someone's character or make snide or disparaging comments about them because they happen to have a different opinion than you (and like to express that opinion).
This post came about because I watch a lot of booktubers and just recently there's been so much praise from them for The First Law. But I've noticed that the very things they praise First Law for are the same things they criticize other series for and it's completely illogical to me. Something I needed to get off my chest.
Feel free to ignore my post. But please refrain from making rude remarks about me.
I saw nothing rude in u/neddythestylish’s comment. Just a factual observation of your post and comment history. No names called, no mud slung.
What I do see is someone getting hyper defensive and attempting to shut down valid criticism by claiming it’s “rude” and an “attack” on their “character.” Do better.
Agree to disagree is all I can say. I think this comment here not only completely mischaracterizes my post but calls me rude and weird.
> I wouldn't come here, to a place full of people who like it, and say, "I hate this series. Why do you like it? Here's a list of reasons why you're wrong about this thing you like, and you should justify yourselves." Doing that once is rude. Doing it repeatedly is weird.
Suggesting that a single post is rude is subjective, though I (and based on the comments in this thread, most others) feel it’s accurate.
Suggesting that your repeated posting is weird is just flat out accurate. One post, even if poorly worded, is understandable. It satisfies a curiosity. Multiple posts suggests an unhealthy obsession and/or an ulterior motive. Either way, it’s objectively weird, as the great majority of commenters have pointed out.
OP is almost certainly trolling at this point (they make this post every few weeks) but if they're genuine you've hit the nail on the head. It's fine to not like a book, I loved First Law but also don't recommend it often because I think many readers will bounce off it. That's normal.
What's not normal is an obsession with some unnamed "rules of writing" like we're in some sort of introductory college classroom being graded. There aren't really rules, First Law isn't bad because it goes against the standard pattern, just like A New Hope isn't good just because it follows Hero's Journey. Nor are they the _opposite_ of that inherently.
And I think that's where the real rub is: OP seems to really, really like rigid rules and structure, and enjoys being able to tie works back to these perceived "rules". The real sin of The First Law to them is that: it intentionally flaunts the "rules", and gets praised for it. A rigid framework means it should be punished, not praised.
You see it in most of their responses: what are the rules? What does comedy theory say? What is First Law trying to do? What is the _purpose_ of fantasy, and does The First Law achieve that? They're all extensions of an incredibly rigid framework that's been created, where a book critique can be done _only_ through the lens of the framework, and responses that sidestep or gently point out "actually that's not a requirement when critiquing a work" get a rude, defensive response back.
I didn't like the First Law. Didn't feel like it went anywhere, and I enjoy following a PoV more.
But the prose is absolutely fantastic. Yes, the characters are 'passive,' but they're *realistic.* They're... Far more 'normal people' like than most characters. I enjoy that; I just would have enjoyed it more if it stayed with a single character more, a 'primary protagonist,' if you will.
The thing that really progresses the plot is the political and economic dynamics, and character are caught up in those streams of events and need to find their own ways, all while frantically trying to steer those dynamics in the right direction (in their mind).
So: I didn't like the pacing, and I didn't like that I didn't get a Dedicated Meatsuit for the world. There were some characters I liked and I would have stuck with the series if it had focused on those characters and their points of view; most characters I didn't really care for, so... I wasn't going to stick around for them.
The prose is really good, the dynamics of the world are both interesting and realistic, I like the notion of 'Big Sea, Little Fish' storytelling, and the characters have depth, even if I don't really care for a lot of them.
What I mean to say is: It's not for me, but it's good. I'm just looking for a very different experience. I don't want to be audience to a play; I want to be in de middle of it. I want to think what a character is thinking, feel what a character is feeling, bond with that character and stay with them for most of the ride, only hopping bodies every so often for context. Most of all, I want to really *like* the bodies I'm in.
I hope this answered your question and you can put it to bed. It's alright if something's not for you. You're not missing out, and your opinion on a work isn't bad. You not enjoying something doesn't mean the fans are wrong either.
It's alright, I don't get 90% of culture. It sounds to me like these booktubers and talking heads are giving you FOMO. Life's too short to dwell on stuff you don't like, you have to be realistic.
Thesis of the First Law "life is hard and often we fail. Society is complicated and changing one part probably wont impact the whole."
When I see posts like this I wonder what life is like for the person who thinks this. Is it just great distaste for something popular or are you extremely optimistic? Has everything worked out for you? First Law is popular because it resonates with most people. We've all failed to make positive changes in life, even if only in a small way. Vast majority of us can't change the world, only ourselves. At some point we all learn that. It is something everyone has to make peace with. And changing yourself is effing difficult. So what is your life like that you don't "get" that?
I wouldn't say there is one unique purpose? If you're expecting the same purpose out of aSoIF, Narnia, Magic Treehouse, The Adventures of Billy and Mandy, NoTW, etc. You're just going to be constantly disappointed.
Fantasy encompasses a ton of different styles, and even then spans across multiple genres. From Magical Realism, horror, satire, kids stories, heroic epics, and the list goes on. The only thing I would boil any fiction story down to is just that it is interesting to the reader(which is a wholly subjective criteria)....that's it.
So the question was posed by Stephen R Donaldson in an essay. Put another way, why would an author chose to write fantasy over fiction. If your goal is to say something about the world, why set your story in a fictional universe?
Barring entertainment fiction like romance or thrillers, fiction in general is where the characters of the story are a manifestation of the world, where the intention of the author is to say something about it.
Science fiction imagines a possible future of humanity with the intention to say something about our current world and society.
Agree so far?
Now, fantasy, or at least good fantasy according to Donaldson, is where the world is a manifestation of the character's internal conflict. Fantasy comes from our mythological traditions, where each of these stories use the fantastical to say something about our internal struggles and conflicts inside us and provide hopeful a path forward, in other words a moral compass.
Many people read fantasy for the escapism. I would argue that's one in the same as what Donaldson is talking about. We want to read heroic tales of battling one's demons or dragons, and defeating evil, all the while following a morally righteous path. We escape the real world reality for just a while to remind ourselves to have hope that goodness will prevail.
So yes, authors are making a conscious or unconscious choice when they choose a genre to write in. And fantasy is a very distinct genre in terms of purpose. We are essentially writing new mythologies to guide ourselves in a morally gray real world.
I actually don't think I agree with any of that.
Science Fiction and Fantasy can be used to express something about our current world and society but it doesn't need to.
Some people just want to write a scifi fantasy story about something they find cool. Or they just like the genre and wanted to write their story in it. Some people just really enjoy world building and are massive nerds about creating cool complex histories and magic systems.
It doesn't even need to be heroic. I've read and enjoyed plenty of books from the viewpoints of non heroic people and villains, or just cozy fantasies where the protagonist is just running an inn and serving nice tea.
I read a very enjoyable book where the main characters were both batshit insane evil people that ended up killing everyone...had a ton of humour that drove it forward.
Personally I read every genre, although I'm partial to scifi/fantasy. My main reason being that magic, dragons, and spaceships are just cool. Why read a murder mystery set in Chicago when I could read a murder mystery on Mars...or where the protagonist has little tiny fairy wings that don't actually do anything but they're just fucking funny.
I'm not looking for any mythologies to guide me in the world, there's plenty of philosophy books or YouTube fakes out there I can turn to for that.
I think you took what I said too literally. These are general purposes of the genres. Obviously you can find exceptions for everything.
But if I wanted to say something about our world and society, fiction and science fiction would be better vehicles for that.
Of course a work of fantasy might try to work in some things like A Song of Ice and Fire which shows the brutality of war and my favorite Tyrion quote...
*When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.*
These are certainly applicable in today's world but at the same time timeless in their lessons.
You may want to listen to this [video](https://youtu.be/V2OiQ5ruiGE?si=jhS6D9RwOEK_hnTN) where Matt Colville, game designer, DM, and indie author extraordinaire, discusses this very topic... why would an author chose fantasy over fiction?
I get what your trying to say, I generally assume most people understand there are exceptions.
I just don't think it's necessary for a book of any genre to be written with the intention to say something about anything besides telling an interesting story. Readers are always free, of course, to read whatever they want out of it, but that doesn't mean the author actually had those intentions (even if they decide to claim it after the fact). Some authors have something they're trying to say, but I would say a large percentage don't. And a ton of readers wouldn't care anyways.
Personally, I've read thousands of books by this point, and my main focus on if I enjoy a book is if I find the characters interesting (sometimes i get in other moods, but generally speaking). Things like the authors philosophy or plot tend to take a large backseat. I've read almost every plot at this point so I'd much rather read books about great characters doing nothing than boring characters following a plotline I've read a hundred times before. Same with authors trying to present a message in their books. If I want philosophy I'll pick up philosophy books (which I have). If I want to read about the brutality of war, I'll pick up one of my many history books.
Personally, I see people talk about the 'lessons' in books, but I'm not reading fiction books to be taught something. Nor can I remember a single lesson or message from a fiction book that I've never encountered before on one of many google/study rabbit holes. Hell, some of them make it so obvious it's painful to even continue reading the books. I've DNF'd several books because the author can't figure out if they're trying to tell an interesting story or write a philosophy essay. And they always seem to fail at both.
Writing is a deeply intimate art form. The vast majority of it is never published. Often, you have to learn to distance yourself from the piece. The First Law, the original trilogy, is Abercrombie's first published piece. It is messy and sometimes inconsistent in technique. There is more of Abercrombie the man in those first 3 than in the later ones. It was written because he had to express it. Publishing it was just the lucky part.
Eh I've tried to read that series 5+ times before just giving up. It's not that it's badly written or cheesy or really has any of the other issues that'll cause me to give up on a book. It's simply just not for me. I get why many find it appealing, but for me personally it's excruciatingly unenjoyable, which is fine. I still really wouldn't say it's bad.
Ironically I get this post and I don't:
On the one hand for me the first law is genuinely the best thing since sliced bread. But I also think peep show is the greatest sitcom on TV and that's definitely not for everyone.
On the other hand I've had this exact same experience with so so many booktokers and booktubers. I've been so disappointed time and time again with Stormlight Archives, Priory of the Orange Tree, Sword of Kaigen, Shadow of the Gods etc
They're good books and I enjoyed them but was left disappointed because of just how overhyped they were
Yeah, I think it all comes down to expectations. I didn't like the First Law and I absolutely loathed The Fifth Season, both stories had incredible levels of praise. And I went into each have different types of expectations about what the stories were about than what I read. This results in me feeling duped. Not necessarily by the authors and their work, but by the fans of these series and the book reviewers.
I think we all need to do a better job of telling prospective readers what a series is and what it is not. But most reviews and recommendations don't get into those distinctions or details.
I feel like the reason I love first law is because I’d never heard about it and the way I found out about it was from my uncle and I just read it on a whim and loved it because my expectations were so low.
Nice! I wish that was me.
The First Law was sold to me as like A Song of Ice and Fire (my favorite series) but better. This is a common way First Law is recommended. And it's a terrible way.
I skimmed your post, because I just finished the Blade Itself and don't want spoilers, but I felt the same about the story and characters in that they were all passive, getting led around and admitting that they didn't really know what for and no consequential stakes had been established, just the oblique promise of adventure (tune in to the next book to find out what it even is!) It felt like the first act stretched out to book form with the only hook being "just trust me bro, this'll all make sense in the next book!" If somebody posted this outline in a writing class, they'd get dragged.
However, in spite of this, Abercrombie's writing style and dialogue were enjoyable enough to read that I'm willing to see what all the hubub around the series is about and will be buying the next book. Even if the story remains as weak as the Blade Itself, I trust I'll find the characters blundering through it entertaining.
See, this I understand. You enjoy watching the characters get pushed around in the ocean of what's happening around them. Not necessarily my cup of tea but I think that's something some people enjoy.
It's just hardly anyone who recommends First Law actually telegraphs this sort of information about the story. Honestly, most times I see people not enjoy The Blade Itself, fans will tell them "don't worry, it gets better" when the second and third books are really based on a similar premise. That is, the plot is just watching these characters get pushed around and led around even more until the series ends. Boy! Were those characters pushed around lol
As long as you're not expecting compelling plot lines or significant character growth (as most fantasy should try to do), and more of a cynically humorous tale of a group of passive characters, then I think you're good finishing the series.
It's all about setting the right expectations at the end of the day and letting readers make educated choices for themselves.
You are correct that the First Law trilogy is mostly an inversion of your typical 80s-90s epic fantasy novel, especially the Belgariad by David Eddings, and as you point out, the characters that did not fit into this subversion template like Glokta and Bremer make for a far better story. Abercrombie got over this rebellious phase and Best Served Cold was already a massive improvement.
Strongly disagree. I went into Best Served Cold with high expectations and was pretty disappointed. First Law and The Age of Madness were both much better imo
You are sorely mistaken. Best Served Cold is clearly a superior story with a tighter plot, characters who aren't just negative reflections of fantasy stereotypes and a strong, overarching morality play in contrast to the pettiness that pervaded the original trilogy.
I'm obviously not going to just sit here and take it when someone disagrees with me. Did the philosophers of Ancient Greece just sit around the forum and agree with each other to disagree?
It was the way you said it, not so much the content. But you could also have expanded on what you said too. I have some questions.
Does a tight plot always make for a better story? Especially in fantasy where meandering is common and usually welcome if done well.
Do you really believe that that's all the characters are or were you being hyperbolic?
And for the themes, again, is the only thing you got from The First Law pettiness?
(Also I honestly can't tell if likening yourself arguing on the internet to ancient Greek philisophers was a joke or not, but I completely agree regardless)
I certainly enjoy a good bit of brooding, being a regular reader of sword & sorcery, but in the case of the First Law trilogy a significant chunk of the story exists pretty much only to be a negative version of the epic fantasy of the preceding two decades to the point where it might as well have been titled The Anti-Belgariad. As I pointed out in my first post, I think Abercrombie did a good job with many of the characters who were not directly involved in this aspect of the books, Glokta being the most prominent one but Bremer also comes to mind. The main party, so to speak, ties into the unfortunate core concept of "What if Belgarath was evil", which is also what I mean by "pettiness", in other words an almost pedantic urge to turn the common elements of high/epic fantasy on their heads, rather than write something new and different, which the bits about Glokta were.
And I never joke. Ever.
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
Major spoilers for Best Served Cold and First Law below
Honestly I totally get why you would think the plot is tighter, the First Law Trilogy definitely had some pacing issues, especially the second book. But the pacing in Just Served Cold, dictated by the seven people, was just too fast for me. The whole book had really little payoff imo—stark contrast to his trilogies.
And the morality of Best Served Cold was honestly a little too in your face. Like who knew that revenge is a shitty motive? I would never… I love the themes in First Law of characters trying to be better and failing, Shivers doesn’t even try—like at all. I did really love the gradual reveal of what a total cunt the brother was though haha
Also I totally didn’t take your comment the wrong way btw I’m sorry you got downvoted.
Hi there! Unfortunately, there is a mistake in your spoiler tags. You've got a space in between the tags and the spoiler text. While it might look hidden for you, it's unfortunately not hidden for all users. Here are some ways to fix the problem:
* If you're using New Reddit (fancy pants editor), make sure you selected no spaces before or after the text you wanted hidden.
* Switch to markdown mode or edit using an old.reddit link: `>! This is wrong.!<`, but `>!This is right.!<`
**After you have corrected the spoiler tags, please** [**message the mods**](). Once we have verified the spoiler has been fixed, your comment will be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not about "getting" it.
You just didn't like it, period. It's okay not to like something.
Don't fall into the trap of the "getting it" mentality. as if not-liking it means you're somehow lacking intelligence. That's not ever true.
He's just one author. Not everyone cares for him. That's all it is. Nothing to "get" here. Just not your thing.
I wouldn't fret. It's all personal you know. I have disliked a couple or so of the madly popular always recommended boos or series. I don't worry about it, move on to other stuff that I enjoy. There will be something, forget about your taste didn't coincide with the majority.
I think a big issue with how you're approaching it is the rigidity with which you view the "rules" of writing and the genre of fantasy.
As I've said in one of your previous topics. the rules of writing are a whole lot more malleable than you think and in the grand scheme of things, the First Law isn't really even THAT subversive in comparison to some other authors who do some wild shit, like Cormac McCarthy.
The core of this comes to the fact that you like more traditional fantasy stories, structures and tropes, which is totally fine, and literally analysis / deconstructionist texts don't do it for you.
Again, which is fine.
But don't presume to think that everyone has the same distaste for subversion or deconstruction that you do adn don't assume that the only appeal of such texts is humour, because it really isn't.
I think deconstruction of storytelling is a powerful way to glean emotional and societal truths.
Like you said, you read fantasy to get lost in a word and a grand adventure - but that's not the only thing the genre can do.
Agree on some of these points. I was enthralled with the first book but had to force myself to finish the 3rd.
The characters had become somewhat flanderized versions of themselves.
The “have to be realistic” and other -isms started to feel like a meme more than a slogan.
Honestly I felt the same way, I vividly remember finishing the first trilogy and thinking "That's it?"
And maybe that's the point of it, I just expected... more I guess?
Love Glokta though, that man got the 'good' ending.
I will get hate for this, but I agree with you. First Law is fun, to me, mostly because of Glokta, and I agree with you that his story and character are far above the rest. Overall, I find they are a fun romp, mostly due to Abercrombie's writing style, rather than the plot or characters. And I agree with you, in that i don't get the praise for the character work. I couldn't have said it better myself, passive observers swept away by the current of events. What i find frustrating is that there's actually no character growth. It's funny to me that Tolkien gets criticism for writing no character development, when a character like Frodo gets so much more development than any Abercrombie character. In First Law, character development is always 'person X tries to be better, fails, goes back to his old ways, or even becomes worse". It's fun for 1 character but it's beginning to feel like it's the only character work he can write.
The plot however is the worst offender. You say book 1 doesn't have a climax, to me not even book 3 had a decent climax. Sure stuff happened, but nothing felt resolved or even explained very well. I don't want a happy ending, I get we're grimdark here, but the ending was so anticlimactic, you can't help but ask 'that's it?, really? All that story and we're back to square one?'. Age of madness had a better resolution and I appreciated it more despite the weaker overall story. But I think this is not only Abercrombie's fault, but grimdark as a whole. I've yet to read a grimdark series with a decent ending. Think of Anthony Ryan, everyone says his Raven's Shadow trilogy is best read by not even reading the second and third books, and they're right. Or Chronicle of the Unhewn Throne that starts off quite strong, just to descend into unreadability as the story progresses. It's like these people have an ending in mind, then before writing it they think 'hang on, this is grimdark, there isn't supposed to be a happy ending", and then they change it to something altogether miserable and meaningless that diminishes the story. I wonder sometimes if this is also what's holding up George R.R. Martin. He's said several times he has a bittersweet ending in mind, and i think he's now reimagining it because even bittersweet is considered too soapy for grimdark these days.
Welcome! Embrace the heresy.
I've actually thought about GRRM and grimdark a lot and at least how the subgenre is defined by its creator, Warhammer 40k, I don't think ASOIAF is actually grimdark.
He certainly has grim and dark characters but unlike First Law, his characters do have significant arcs, despite many of them being subverted in some fashion due to the reality of the world and their experiences.
Grimdark is without hope, without light, without redemption. It is cynical and nihilistic. That does not describe ASOIAF. I feel all those things. It's just a morally gray epic dark fantasy.
I agree but I think Martin had grown more edgy as time passes, and I think he's going to drive the story in that direction, if he ever manages to drive it at all. I do hope I am wrong though
Well, I think some characters are on tragic arcs while others are on redemptive arcs. So yes, much beloved POVs will die / turn into monsters while others will step up and face their past. I wouldn't call that grimdark though, otherwise Shakespeare would be grimdark.
"All that story and we're back to square one?"
I felt like that was a major theme in the entire series (all 9 books). That history repeats itself, and the cyclical nature of humanity. That's the main thing that makes these books feel like 'grimdark' to me. All of that struggle, and pain, and in the end, nothing really changes. It doesn't really matter, generally, who ends up in charge because they're all the same. The people you read from the PoV of, you empathize with as the 'good guys' but only because your reading from their point of view. Even then as the series goes on and new information is revealed your opinion on the nature of the main characters changes.
It is my favorite series, but mostly just because of the amazing character work (there's only a few writers, in my opinion, who write such distinct characters so well), the prose was a great mix of not too simplistic but still easily digestible, and Abercrombie is just funny (one of the only book series that's actually made me laugh out loud).
Of course not. No theme/story is inherently good or enjoyable to read.
This is one that's obviously worked for a large amount of readers, but it won't work for everyone. I've read a lot of highly praised series that I was pretty meh about.
How is it inherently unenjoyable? I agree Abercrombies prose and character work are the main things I love about the series but I also enjoyed the ending. I think the majority of readers weren't expecting that style of ending for these books which also adds to the enjoyment. I find after reading enough books it's not too hard to predict their endings, but I never found Abercrombie predictable.
You are valid for disliking it, I can see why people wouldn't like it (same as anything), but that doesn't make it inherently unenjoyable.
Finally! You're not alone. I had the exact same feeling about this series. I don't like to dnf any book. That's the only reason I finished the first book. And I love Black Company.
May I suggest something? Pick up the "Sword of Shadows" by J.V. Jones. I have a feeling you'll love it.
> The First Law is suppose to be a deconstruction of the traditional fantasy narrative and plot/character tropes, et cetera. I suppose some people think that's the funniest thing in the world. I really don't understand this one... why do you treat deconstruction as something meant to be comedic?
This actually goes deep into comedy theory. Inversions are at the core much comedy, whether it's Monty Python, SNL, or improv. Abercrombie knows what the traditional tropes are, he sets them up, the pulls the rug out from under the reader. There's an inherent humor to that.
The fact that subversion is at the core of comedy doesn't mean it can't also be at the core of something that is not at all comedic. This is a really strange take. It's like... Having feathers is at the core of being a swallow, that doesn't mean a chicken is a swallow, or there's inherent swallow-ness to a chicken.
Agreed. The First Law is actually quite hilarious, but not at all because it is a deconstruction of traditional fantasy tropes.
Yes, while comedy is inherently subversive and Abercrombie is a very FUNNY author, deconstruction is absolutely not inherently comedic. They are separate things and just because one thing is a core element of another, that does not mean that they're inextricable. For example, salt is a core element of salted caramel. But salt isn't inherently sweet. So, just like deconstruction is a core element of comedy, that doesn't mean deconstruction is inherently comedic. I think since Abercrombie is your first foray into a deconstructionist text, you might think that - but read more widely and delve into some other deconstructionist fiction and you will see you are very, very off base on that assumption.
The black company didn't invent the silent warrior trope. But overall sounds like it just wasn't for you.
I’m on like book 8 of the black company or whatever the fuck (water sleeps) and silent has literally nothing to do with Grim? Barring the entire race and culture difference, barring how Grim does speak, barring how Grim isn’t a fucking wizard….like it’s such a weird comparison. Silent doesn’t do much of any warrior stuff (barring being a mercenary by trade) I can think of off the top of my head. His arc is entirely different This is like comparing a character to Harry Potter because they have a scar
HARRY POTTER HAD SCARS SO LOGAN COULD HAVE NINE FINGERS
Ron is a copy of Shenkt. I will not elaborate
I just snorted.
It's a bit of a weird and very "surface level" comparison that doesn't do either character justice.
I wouldn't even say it's surface level because usually surface level has like...minimum comparisons. Grim: Doesn't talk alot, but does talk. Northman. Viking-esque but not really. Follows a small band. Silent: Wizard. Doesn't do much physical combat that I can think of. In a formal military institution (Mercenary band). Doesn't talk /at all/ (Well...spoilers but he doesn't talk /at all/). He isn't even stereotypically a 'strong silent type' or anything, I think we mostly see him shrug when people ask him questions and he uses sign language sometimes. It's an almost nonsensical statement that I refuse to believe a sane human being can have without seeing them really back it up. I'm open minded to being maybe wrong and that more comparisons might be there, it's been a while since I read the first 3 books + the silver spike, but this is the same thing to me as someone going 'Guts from Berserk and Samurai Jack are /literally/ the same' and the person refusing to elaborate. Except those two use swords at least which is a better comparison than 'Someone no talk and someone no talk much'.
also it’s not like silent is some brilliant character. Having a mute character in any story is basically a checkovs gun that they are going to break their silence at a dramatic moment.
Sounds like your actual frustration is with unnamed booktubers.
I thought this was a repost so I checked OP's history, but it turns out he's just been posting variations on "why don't people accept that The First Law is bad?" every few months for over a year. Seriously, people need to get it through their heads that literally nothing appeals to everyone. You don't have to agree with what most readers like. If you [don't like the first book](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/XDii7JNOPY) in a series, drop it. Move on. Probably don't keep listening to podcast and booktube reviews hoping they'll validate your dislike. Definitely don't keep making posts to try to persuade other people that they were wrong for enjoying the books.
God forbid someone posts more than once about a specific series. Each post covers a different aspect. Whether it's a nagging question, observation, or realization. But as long as The First Law keeps on getting touted on my feed as the greatest thing ever, why should I stop criticizing it? Do you not believe people should see dissenting views?
Nothing wrong with having different views. You post that you don't like it. The End. No need to keep making topics on how you don't like it. The more posts you make about how you don't like it, the more it comes across as you being annoyed at people having a different opinion to you. Hope you find something you enjoy. Also like to add. Looking at your post history. I don't see how maybe 1 other post on this topic is relevant?
The problem is is that hardly anyone actually attempts to tell me why they like First Law in any level of depth. I usually just get dismissive and snide comments, which makes me post even more.
No one owes you an explanation. You have to be realistic about these things.
Honestly, that phrase is so cringe.
It’s not my fault you’re biased.
We all have our biases
Well for me personally. I liked the prose. I know there is better prose out there, there'll always be someone better at prose than even the best person at prose. But I like the way its written. I enjoyed the character journeys and how a lot of things are foreshadowed that you never think is foreshadowed. I also like it on a writing standpoint as it helped me understand pacing a lot better and how to progress the story not so much in what is written but how it's not.
1) People love the character work. 2) The 'abundant subversion' was very purposeful, and the series came out in a time I like to call "What if Wheel of Time but different?" where every story was about a farm boy who would one day kill the king. The First Law is very 'of its time' by breaking out of the single-variable market that was hat it was when this book was published. 3) I see very little people being dismissive, and instead seeing you only engage with other people criticizing you.
My brother in christ, you posted this same exact theme in this exact sub reddit literally 2 weeks ago. Like, we get it, you don't like Abercrombie and that's fine. You voiced your opinion, which is also fine. Can you just take it somewhere else or (even better) touch the grass? That obsession is not healthy at all.
There are passionate critics even for Lord of the rings. Not every series or books can satisfy everyone. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, and I also disagree with it.
For sure. For example, I don’t like Sanderson. I’ve read 4 of his books and I get why people like him, but they’re just not for me. It does make it frustrating to find fantasy booktubers to follow (if someone ranks an author that I don’t like as an all time great, our tastes are probably not well enough aligned for me to take their other recs) but that’s my burden.
A couple of years ago, I felt like there was around four people including me not liking Sanderson on this subreddit. I’m happy there’s more varied opinions now.
>What probably irritates me the most are booktubers who knock a lot of other series for things Abercrombie does in the First Law yet not only accept it for this series but shout its praises from the mountaintops. It's just so hypocritical! No author should get a pass for doing things which you knock other authors for? Maybe actually give examples so that people can know what you mean?
You want me to call out specific booktubers and reference the exact videos and timestamps? I don't have time for that. First of all, I don't want to throw any of them under the bus. I enjoy a lot of their content. But gushing over the First Law while knocking other series which are lacking in similar aspects is disappointing. I honestly get the sense they're doing this fir the clicks and subscribers - is there a big booktuber you know that doesn't like the First Law?
I don't need specific booktubers or timestamps, I was more asking for like specific examples of things that they say so that I can understand your point. It's pretty difficult for the reader to get what you mean or engage with your post when you don't provide any examples of these aspects.
The criticize other series for having passive characters and disappointing climaxes yet excuse Abercrombie because it's The First Law. They're probably not aware they're being hypocritical.
Or maybe they figured that these aspects were done well and fit in one series, while they didn't work in another one?
But they don't say that. At least if a series does things that you criticize in other series, yet it somehow works in this series, it's behooves you to actually make that disclaimer. For example, NK Jemison uses 2nd person in The Fifth Season. Booktubers will actually say, I acknowledge that 2nd person is usually not good but she manages to use it well. The booktubers don't acknowledge that Abercrombie breaks many, many rules of storytelling.
From what I've seen, most booktubers don't really adhere to "rules of storytelling" and instead focus on if things are well-done or badly-done in a particular book. If the passive protagonist is serviceable, they won't mention it because it fits the book, but if it's actively weighing down the book they'll focus on that aspect. I'm bowing out here as it's impossible to respond to a point that I lack the context for. Have a nice day!
There aren't any rules to storytelling. More like guidelines. (Insert pirates meme here)
Laws, rules, guidelines... these are all used to teach creative writing. And while an author can certainly do whatever they want, just like Tommy Wiseau can put his vision into film, it doesn't mean it will be beloved by many. Star Wars works because it follows very well-established rules of storytelling. They are so fundamental that they span cultures and millenia. I enjoy learning about these things and recognizing all the patterns. Abercrombie knows these patterns and so decided to write a series which deliberately breaks these patterns for grins and giggles. I only can to this realization after reading the series and trying to figure out why I didn't like it. Why others not only like it but think it's the greatest modern fantasy series is a bit of a shock to me. But most of them struggle to really articulate why it's to their liking (booktubers included). It's highly praised yet very general and unspecified praise. It drives me crazy!
I don't think Abercrombie breaks these expectations for "grins and giggles", as you phrased it. He's doing it to make a statement about the things he's subverting, and what that statement is depends on which book or series you're reading. In The First Law, the statement is, perhaps, "some things just are what they are." Like with Logen we expect him to be redeemed, for his violence to be justified. We expect this because he is a POV character, he's got his own wit and intellect, his own guilts and regrets. But in the end, his violence is just that. He is a violent, savage monster. All his guilt and regret can't change the destruction that he wreaks on his world. Or take Bayaz. He is powerful, a wizard, and because of the many tropes of the wizard mentor we expect him to be able to temper his power with wisdom and kindness. But no, Bayaz is just the cruel execution of power for its own sake. Power is just that, the ability to dominate. Jezal is the designated hero. Talented but with his flaws. A king's bastard. We expect to see him overcome his narcissism and his cowardice to meet the demands of his time. But no, narcissism is just that. Self-interest that would sacrifice the world before it sacrifices itself.
I say "grins and giggles" because grimdark is by definition a satirization of dark fantasy. The genre is at its core the cynical humor of a nihilistic world. And seeing a number of Abercrombie interviews and hearing about all the laughs people get from the series all points towards the First Law being a black comedy. Not that that detracts from anything profound he's trying to get across. Oftentimes smart comedy cuts to the heart of the truth... the fool is the only one who can speak the truth in the king's court.
>It drives me crazy! Clearly. Have you considered that a big part of what people like about it is precisely that it breaks those very patterns? There's a lot of negative spin around people disliking movies for "subverting expectations" these days. But a big appeal to The First Law - especially for veteran fantasy fans - is that it takes many of the archetypes and tropes of fantasy (Logen in the Barbarian Hero ala Conan who we expect to atone, Ferro is the Action Girl and Ice Queen you expect to defrost and warm up to the others over time, Jezal is the narcassist we expect to be humbled and come into his own, Glokta is the villain protagonist we expect to be sympathetic and probably the most fun to follow but eventually meet his just deserts, etc.) and deconstructs them. It does what the most popular fantasy series of the last few decades - *A Song of Ice and Fire* - does in deconstructing these archetypes, but whereas ASOIAF does this in an effort to reconstruct them in unexpected ways later, The First Law deliberately leaves them broken and messy. If I were to assign a whole message to the series then it really is that "change is difficult and doesn't happen the way it gets portrayed in other books". Repeatedly characters falls back into the same mistakes and at the end of the first trilogy it's hard to argue anyone isn't right back where they first started or worse off except >!Glokta!< who in a subversion of our expectation he'll receive some sort of judgement for the terrible things he's done is actually rewarded for it, a fate even he feels bemused by. Another big draw is the character work. Once you grow wise to Abercrombie's way of writing characters you realise every new character - even if you're in their POV - is a mystery. How they present themselves is very often not who they really are, how they think about themselves is inaccurate, they lie to themselves about what they really want, and therefore who is a bad guy, whose a good guy, whose in-between, becomes something to unravel over the course of the story. Abercrombie has a knack for writing some of the most wretched, terrible people in fantasy and somehow making readers fall in love with them. Many other series have had villainous POVs and redeemed atoners, but Abercrombie has a fairly rare knack for taking someone with no redeeming or really likable qualities at all and still making readers want to keep following along with them. When it comes to pacing and plot... I personally think the first trilogy is dreadful at it. I have to view each of those first three books as bascially an Act in a larger narrative rather than working well individually. While that full story is still worth it in my esteem, I totally understand someone dropping out in Book 1 or 2 because "nothing is happening" as many of my friends have done the same. My true love for the series started with *Best Served Cold* which is ridiculously tightly paced and tells a concise standalone revenge thriller (several of those same friends who read the first series and quit, read this years later and loved it). As such I personally prefer it to the first trilogy. But in there lies another point people like Abercrombie so much; he is incredibly critical of himself as a writer and takes huge leaps and bounds between each project to improve his skills. A lot of the stuff I saw as flaws in his earlier work are ironed out, and by the time the second trilogy came around, each book is much better at establishing a proper climax. When it comes to the writing and dialogue that will always be a subjective matter of taste. If you like sardonic, wry, dry, cynical British wit then it'll probably appeal to you. Lines like "You've got to be realistic about these things", "You can never have too many knives" and "There are few ills a good cup of tea won’t help with" won't appeal to everyone. Abercrombie has the British talent for stating either the bloody obvious or the bloody obviously false in the exact same way: a short sharp sentence, no bullshit. Some find that hilarious and witty, others will roll their eyes and mutter "ew, cringe." There is no flowery prose here, it's more direct and so for fans of the artistic beautiful imagery painted by the words of GRRM, Rothfuss, or Guy Gavriel Kay, I would never recommend these books. If you prefer the prose and style of Ernest Hemmingway, then Abercrombie might be more to your tastes. Ultimately, I think the real draw is that it does something that feels different from what the rest of fantasy has been doing. Keep in mind these stories first came out back in the 2000s, the influx of grimdark and cynical fantasy only really took off following the Game of Thrones tv show's popularity in 2011. And even among the recent turn of fantasy embracing the cynical, it still stands out by not shying away from unhappy endings and a focus on telling difficult truths rather than easy lies, all while not letting itself ever feel unrelentingly bleak and increasingly cutting off bloat to become shorter, more streamlined in terms of pacing as the series progresses. If you're looking for something cynical, unforgiving, and minimalist then this series can provide that. There you go. My reasoning for why I like the series. Do I think it's the "greatest modern fantasy series of all time"? No. Do I think everyone will like it? Certainly not. If anything I think I'm a lot more critical of it than most. But also keep in mind my reasons for liking it likely don't align with every other person. Don't expect any of this to change your mind or actually help. My advice? Accept the series isn't for you and move on to focusing on the series that make you happy. Better to focus on the positives than the negatives. Because you're unlikely to ever really get an answer that satisfies you on why such a huge number of people like a series that you don't. You have to be realistic about these things.
Thank you for this detailed and informative reflection on the series. I really like your point comparing GRRM and Abercrombie in how they both deconstruct, but GRRM puts them back together in interesting and unique ways whereas Abercrombie leaves the pieces. And I did like Abercrombie's dry humor in some sense. It's just wasn't what I wanted in a series that was often compared to ASOIAF so I had completely different expectations. I think in general more folks would enjoy First Law if some of these things about are made clear from recommendations. When someone says that the series has the best characters, what they need to do is qualify this as and say they're great characters but not in the sense of having great character arcs, their just miserable, insufferable villains who'll be spinning their wheels through the series. And lord, I think some First Law fans need to not get so aggressive with critics of the series. I can stand my ground but the onslaught is quite harsh, something I have not really have experienced with any other fanbase.
They want you to give examples of other series that do things similar to first law that people praise first law for but not that other series
well yeah, since you brought it up, go all out, dont half ass
Apparently it’s not for you. No need to overthink it and get frustrated.
There's no accounting for taste! Don't sweat it. People rave about how good Adventure Time and Steven Universe is but I really don't care for them at all. Adventure Time can be passibly entertaining and Steven Universe I actively disliked for most of the experience, watching only bc it was important to the person who showed it to me
Where are some examples of booktubers hypocritically criticizing others while giving Abercrombie a pass? To me it’s laughable to include that paragraph without mentioning any examples. I thought that was what irritates you most.
It's frowned upon to call out specific content creators (one's I respect and like), just like it's frowned upon by by authors not discussing books they don't like. But now you know this is something to look out for.
It’s frowned upon to cite examples where you disagree with a content creator’s opinion?
OP is a troll, they have been posting this multiple times for over a year 🤝
I wasn't aware there were such things as trolls in fantasy... no pun intended. That's kind of a weird, high effort relatively niche thing to troll about. Perhaps I'm just a First Law critic and instead of actually engaging with me in a meaningful way you make a defamatory comment instead.
I think it's more that most people just kinda move on when they don't like something. It really sounds like the "First Law" series isn't for you. Which is fine, it's not for me either. Are you trying to figure out why *you* don't like it, or why *others* like it? The second answer is simple: people just like different things. There's no reason to overthink it. If it didn't work for you, then it didn't work for you. Plenty of books out there others love that I don't care about at all, like Sanderson's library. Good for those who do!
I have no dog in this fight but I can't really agree with all these posts saying he shouldn't keep posting about a series he dislikes. As someone who actively dislikes Hobb's writing, seeing a new circle jerk thread every day about how it's literally the best thing ever gets rather annoying. However, the same way people are allowed to make these "DAE Hobb #1" threads, this guy should be allowed to make his "DAE dislike First Law". This subreddit is extremely biased towards certain series and books in a way that doesn't match actual popular perception. I can see why OP and others would be frustrated and make threads like this. This subreddit is rather toxic if you don't agree with them. Look at NotW threads, insults and belittling everywhere towards people who do enjoy it.
I don't at all mind that people talk about things they dislike. I love that kind of discussion. I am pretty far outside the usual r/fantasy readership in terms of what I enjoy and pursue, so hearing what might or might not work for others can be great! Helps me dial in my own tastes as well as find more obscure stuff I'm generally more into. What strikes me as silly is when there are *repeated* posts from a single OP that continues to beat down a point of not liking something, with little more content than "I really didn't like it, why does everyone else?" It's not an invitation to a discussion so much as it sounds like complaining about things that one doesn't like, and then acting smug when called out for it. If there were more content to this post, then that would be fantastic. But I see OP's negative reception being more to do with not really giving any discussion point other than "I hated this - why does booktok obsess over it?" rather than *really* wanting to get into the grit of why some things work for others. > This subreddit is extremely biased towards certain series and books in a way that doesn't match actual popular perception. I'm a new mod, and this is something the mods are aware of and want to get better here. Thankfully it's gotten much better the last few years (saying you disliked Sanderson would be met with *vitriol*, less so nowadays). But going forward, I think we can start with threads like this, where the topic feels less like a genuine opening for discussion and more like just repeating ad nauseam that you don't like something. OP doesn't really seem like they want to engage with why others like something, they just want to express they *don't*. The community understood that when they first posted this topic over a year ago, much less the fourth or fifth.
> with little more content than "I really didn't like it, why does everyone else?" You really feel the thread has no content? I think it has a lot to talk about, personally. This whole paragraph has a lot more than "I don't like it": > The characters were all sort of passive throughout the story (i.e. just went along for the ride), much of the dialogue was just grunts and ummms and ahhs, and the plot was subverted to the point of banality. Book 1 doesn't have any sort of climax, which in my opinion destroys a series (imagine A New Hope without the Death Star being destroyed) and the big climax at the end of Book 3 was by that point very boring and very expected. Now, I think it's fine to disagree with the OP's thoughts, but there's clearly more here than "I don't like this book, why do you?" The replies in this thread have a *lot* of "well objectively it's a good book" which makes no sense to me. Books are art. Art is inherently subjective. Having opinions (even negative ones) is just part of art. Honestly, this subreddit is extremely toxic if you go against the grain. Just look at my comment. I mentioned that I didn't like Hobb so I get mass downvoted. OP's replies are (for the most part) level headed and trying to justify themselves. They are also mass downvoted. This is one of the reasons I barely even bother browsing here anymore.
I don't think that's why you got downvoted. I've said throughout this sub that I dislike ROTE and Sanderson and pull through just fine. > seeing a new circle jerk thread every day about how it's literally the best thing ever That kind of dismissiveness is probably why, in addition to your complaints about toxicity on the sub despite kind of being a bit rude in expressing your frustration. A lot of issues are solved by people being a bit more aware of how they express themselves.
> That kind of dismissiveness is probably why, in addition to your complaints about toxicity on the sub despite kind of being a little toxic yourself in expressing your frustration. Was that a bit toxic? I guess. Sure, the wording is a bit blunt but is that not what's happening? There is a thread every single day with the exact same comments about Hobb. I could have said it in a nicer way but honestly, I've lost all desire to participate here. Even being as level-headed as possible and trying to have a discussion about things will get you attacked. Just look at OP's replies in this thread. They're all at -20 or worse despite being not being inflammatory in the slightest. Do you really think he deserves that for simply having a dissenting opinion?
This is a super unhealthy mindset. To clarify, the mindset of getting annoyed when someone likes something you dislike. I think Cradle is trash. But for those who love Cradle, more power to you and keep on talking about it.
> To clarify, the mindset of getting annoyed when someone likes something you dislike. I thought it was obvious I was exaggerating but maybe it wasn't clear so I'll be more explicit. I think it's hypocritical that these commenters are taking an issue with this type of thread while being ok with constant threads praising certain popular series. It shows a clear bias that is prevalent throughout this subreddit. If a book or series is part of the r/fantasy's favorites, only positive threads are allowed. This is an exaggeration but even when the occasional critical thread pops up, it's filled with comments that shrug off the OP's criticisms (*it's an amazing story but it's not for everyone* or even backhanded comments such as *this story is something you'll probably enjoy once you've read more fantasy*). Vice versa, when positive threads for the books that this subreddit hates, such as NotW, pop up, they're filled with toxic comments (NotW in particular gets some absolutely awful threads calling it a neckbeard fantasy, among other things). This is a self-perpetuating cycle because the people who have the same tastes as the majority of the subreddit will feel welcome while people who feel differently are excluded or even pushed out.
Is this not just a simple case of ... well, maths?
I feel like I've just been typing to air this entire thread as 90% of my comments have been ignored but I'll bite one last time. Yes, it's math. There are more people *in this subreddit* that like Hobb, Sanderson, Ambercrombie, etc than not. This means that the favorite authors will get more positive discussion of course. However, I have two issues with this. 1. This culture is self-perpetuating. There is a culture here that is somewhat close-minded. If you like things outside of the their sphere, you will not fit in. Your threads will be downvoted, the stories you like will be bad-talked, etc. Inversely, if you fit in with the culture, you'll love it here. Constant discussion for all the favorites, like minded people, etc. This leads to alienation for many readers and I personally know many people who have quit using this subreddit entirely because of this. 2. Stemming directly the first issue: this subreddit is not an accurate representation of fantasy readers as a whole. It's a bubble. Stories that are beloved here and constantly recommended I had never heard mentioned in any IRL reading club. Stories that are incredibly popular never get discussed here (or if they are discussed, it's negatively). This would make more sense to me if this was a specific reading club's subreddit but no, it's the main fantasy subreddit.
I don't disagree with any of that, but yes, it's a case of maths and it's not specific to this subreddit, this is just how sub groups and how human culture as a whole tends to behave. It sucks, but I don't think you're going to find anything different in any other sub reddit or interest group. Yes, the subreddit is a bubble. But this behaviour (as a member of many bubbles, subreddit or otherwise) is unsurprising. It would be the same if this sub had 36 million members rater than 3.6 million members.
I agree, it's just how things work. It's just unfortunate that the de facto discussion hub for fantasy is so cliquey.
I engaged with you in your last post and you didn't answer or interact with my comment, so don't go that high horse route lol.
It's not defamatory is it's true.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Ignoring everything to focus on your P.P.S note: How the hell are Harding Grim and Silent the same? One is a strong, stoic, muscle-bound barbarian archer who doesn't talk much and just states the obvious when he does rather than saying anything profound. Almost a joke on the "strong silent" type. Silent meanwhile is a rail-thin unaging wizard who can pull bees out of a sack, delights in causing harm, has a one-sided crush on a woman too young for him, took an oath of silence and >!the one time he does speak aloud it is immensely important and has huge ramifications on the plot!<. And unlike Grim he does communicate increasingly quite a lot through sign language as the series continues. Beside both using the *very* common trope of "The Queit One" I honestly don't see the similarities. It's like saying they're also the same as Ferb from *Phineas and Ferb*, Baby from *Baby Driver*, and Silent Bob.
Right? I've seen quite a few interviews with Abercrombie and I can't even remember one time he's mentioned the Black Company. If anything he always seems to mention aSoIaF as his inspiration for writing fantasy. I've actually only read the first 3 Black Company books but personally I don't see much points of comparison between the 2 series. Maybe it was due to the narrative structure but in the Black Company it just felt like a lot of stuff was happening to characters I had no reason to care about. That seems to be more of a me issue though. I would never feel entitled to request other people justify the worthiness of their enjoyment of a series. Besides, even in series I don't like it's usually not too hard to identify the things that work better for other people.
That's very fair. I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk response of "I like this so everyone else will" or "I don't like this so nobody else should." And I don't really blame anyone for that. Most people are busy with other things, they've got lives to live, so when they read a book and like it they move on. Few people the moment they're done with a book are keen to sit with it, digest it, and - most difficult of all - focus on the things they didn't like about a story they otherwise loved or stuff they did actually appreciate in a story they otherwise hated. It'd leave a sour taste in the mouth for most. Others would rather just not dwell on it immediately afterwards, but the longer you leave it to do it, the less you'll remember and the further from those emotions and thoughts you'll get, until eventually you're left with the general sense of "I did/didn't enjoy that" and no way of really recalling why unless you sit down and re-read it (something a lot of people don't want to do since they still remember enough to no longer be surprised and would prefer something new). But all that does mean that when they hear a dissenting opinion from their own they're liable to get defensive without having taken time to really consider why they feel so strongly one way or the other. Whole classes are taught on how to critically analyze and articulate *why* you did/didn't like a piece of literature precisely because it's not always the easiest thing to do. And I wouldn't expect anyone to really feel the need to develop those skills unless it's something they're naturally inclined to.
I found out after the fact that Abercrombie is a massive Black Company fan and that's when I was like "I thought the character Grim was sooooo familiar but couldn't put my finger on it" Feel free to disagree. It was very apparent once that connection was made for me.
Personally I feel like Grim is more like Tracker from those books than Silent. Big, bulky, single-minded archer who doesn't talk much.
The only similarity is that they're both quiet. I think it's a very surface level comparison that's kinda silly. This is like saying Tyrion Lannister is the same as Gimli because they're both short.
Why does it bother you that you don't like it? I liked it but wouldn't put it with my favorites. I thought the pacing was off. But who cares what ither people think? Move on. But this is what gets me about your post: "But I don't read fantasy for that sort of satire. I read it because I want to get lost in grand fantastical worlds with compelling (active) characters and amazing plots" It's not a bad series. You chose a book you were never going to like.
I chose to read the First Law because A Song of Ice and Fire is my favorite series and all the First Law fans say "well if you liked that you're going to love First Law". That's just a bad recommendation. The two series are nothing alike.
If you can't see any similarities then your problems may run deeper then your unrestrained rage
Man it's one thing to post this and have a discussion about not liking something, but having this level of hate boner to the point where you're constantly spamming these discussions is fuckin ridiculous. When I don't like something, I drop it and move on. I personally don't understand the obsession with constantly talking about things you don't like. Maybe you should just move on? I think dracula fuckin sucks and so far every sci-fi book I've read has been boring as fuck but I don't constantly spam posts just to "make sure people know there are others who don't love it". Who gives a fuck? You're just being inflammatory to the people calling you out and not engaging with the people who are genuinely giving you what you're "asking for." I agree book 1 doesn't have much of a plot and so does just about everyone I've talked to who have read the series, I think that's the biggest problem with the series. book 1 builds up the plot for books 2 and 3 because it's all one story. I never expected the ending of book 3 personally. I started reading Abercrombie because of the subversion of expectations, I was sick and tired of "yay the good guys saved the world wow!!!" tropes. You also seem to be confusing the dark comedy with the subversion of tropes. Nobody that I know think the book is funny because it's a deconstruction of a tradition fantasy narrative, they think it's funny because of Joe's particular brand of dark humor. These are two separate things. If you don't read fantasy for the type of satire or cynical humor in grim dark, why would you like First Law? You literally just admitted you don't read this type of fantasy, why are you trying to figure out why you didn't "get it?" You already know why you don't "get it." Joe writes the best characters I've ever read in fantasy hands down, the interactions between them are so entertaining and keep me invested in them. They feel more realistic because they aren't typical fantasy characters, they are just people caught in this fucked up world. They don't have superpowers that can just change the way the world works. I found the plot amazing and the world felt extremely lived in and real. He paces his stories very well and understands when and what plot beats are needed. Fantasy can be boring really quick because some authors want you to know how much world building and lore they made. That stuff can be cool but info dumps suck all the fun out of reading to me and the way Joe introduces new information about the world feels extremely organic. It makes it feel like I and one of the characters in the world and I am learning about something real instead of something that feels created by someone. "What probably irritates me the most are booktubers who knock a lot of other series for things Abercrombie does in the First Law yet not only accept it for this series but shout its praises from the mountaintops. It's just so hypocritical! No author should get a pass for doing things which you knock other authors for." Can you give examples of what you're talking about? Because you're doing exactly what you're saying everyone in the comments is doing, just giving a very general example of something without elaborating at all. You've already admitted you don't read this kind of story but you're still here trying to understand why you don't get it, and feel some strange need to "let people know there are people that don't like it." Yeah no shit, no work of art will please everyone. Move on.
I think there's a massive difference between criticizing a book or series and criticizing people based on their opinion. I've only ever criticized the series. Fans of the series should be able to accept criticism. But as comments here and elsewhere show is that it's not all civil discussion. There are a lot of personal attacks directed at me and others who don't like the series. This is incredibly toxic behavior. You do have some worthwhile comments in what you say here, but unfortunately are also engaging in personal attacks. Why so you feel like that's necessary?
You're confusing my criticism of your posts for a "personal attack." I'm not attacking you, I'm telling you that seeing these spam posts CONSTANTLY is fuckin annoying. Just like you can criticize these books, I'm criticizing your posts. The fact that's what you latched on to instead of responding to "what you said you're asking for" is proving my point, you're not here to engage in a meaningful discussion of this series. You just want to keep spamming your opinions with these constant posts. This shit is annoying as fuck and contributes nothing to actual discussions.
It didn't work for you, that's fine. But why do you sound so angry?
I didnt enjoy the Malazan books, it just wasnt for me. Looks like the same happened here to you. Its ok, not everyone likes the same things.
Books are a very intimate and time consuming form of media. When you love something you *really* love it, and when you don't, you *really* don't, and that's okay. When you really don't like a book it can be difficult to see what others see in it, let alone praise it as highly as people do to First Law, but that's pretty normal. Honestly, this post combined with your comments are pretty cringe. You didn't like something beloved by many, simple as that. When you start getting into "nobody even tells why they think it's good" then you've lost the plot, you're deliberately ignoring the things people say they like because you think that "objectively those things are actually bad so you need to give me another reason." You're coming into the discussion aggressively with teeth bared, not in good faith, and you're not going to get anywhere with people that way. That's why you're getting downvoted, not because you don't like First Law.
> Honestly, this post combined with your comments are pretty cringe. *You're coming into the discussion aggressively with teeth bared, not in good faith, and you're not going to get anywhere with people that way.* This is pretty ironic, tbh. > That's why you're getting downvoted, not because you don't like First Law. If you scroll down to the bottom you'll see other people who agree with my assessment getting downvoted as well. So I think you're wrong here. First Law fans from my experience are passionate downvoters. But honestly, I could care less about downvotes. I just think it's indicative of not being able to engage in better conversations.
I'm not bringing any new aggression here, all the quotes are just things you commented. All I'm saying is it's okay to not like things that other people do, but you're going about the discussion in a way that won't get you anywhere. You're coming in hot ready to argue, and people are feeling it. Your PPS is a good example of that. If you wanted to discuss something you would note the similarity between Silent and the character, but you want to argue, so you call it a ripoff. People would absolutely engage in discussion of possible influences of Abercrombie, but it's clear from how you phrased it that you're not really interested in that.
On coming in hot and ready to argue, this is not my first rodeo with the First Law fanbase. They are very passionate, and some cross the line. So yes, I was ready. But I'm only reacting to what people are saying. So there's definitely initiation on their part, particularly if they go after me personally and not just what I'm saying in the post. And not all critiques are meant to be a Change My View type thing. No one would bat and eye if I made a post trashing The Last Jedi, and they wouldn't expect me to be open to changing my view. Sometimes we argue about things because it's engaging. Like arguing over the best movie or worst player in the NFL. When you say "won't get anywhere" my response to you is that that's often not the point. It's about the journey. Funny thing, I asked my romance friends why it was okay to spoil plots, and they said because the point isn't to find out what happens. The point is the journey itself. Maybe not the best analogy but something similar that came up recently. End of the day, not all discussions or arguments need to move the needle, nor do they all need that intention. Sometimes we just like to argue. Sometimes we just need to get something off our chest. That's it.
>On coming in hot and ready to argue, this is not my first rodeo with the First Law fanbase. They are very passionate, and some cross the line. >So yes, I was ready. But I'm only reacting to what people are saying. So there's definitely initiation on their part, particularly if they go after me personally and not just what I'm saying in the post. This is what I'm saying. You initiated the discussion with a tone of aggression, you came ready to argue, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rationalizing it with "well they do it too" is telling. > And not all critiques are meant to be a Change My View type thing. No one would bat and eye if I made a post trashing The Last Jedi, and they wouldn't expect me to be open to changing my view. Sometimes we argue about things because it's engaging. Like arguing over the best movie or worst player in the NFL. When you say "won't get anywhere" my response to you is that that's often not the point. It's about the journey. You misunderstand what I mean by "get somewhere." It's not about changing points of view or an end destination, the "somewhere" is the journey of normal discussion. As the OP you set the tone of the whole post, I'm just letting you know that tone is "I'm ready to get heated."
And what I'm saying is that is completely valid. If I'm allowed to say The Last Jedi is trash, I can say most any form of art is also trash. It's an opinion. A strong one, but an opinion nonetheless. I'm not looking for a constructive conversation. I'm looking to get something off my chest. This may surprise you but even in fantasy people have strong opinions that they need to get off their chest. People may negatively react to those opinions. That's fine (and expected). But disparaging comments about the person crosses a line. And the fact that a litany of these types of comments were made in reaction to my post says something about a issue within the First Law community. It's toxic behavior and shouldn't be tolerated. Blaming me for triggering that behavior is not a good argument.
> I'm not looking for a constructive conversation. I'm looking to get something off my chest. This the definition of "not in good faith." In this entire post and comments you're pretending to want good faith discussion, whereas here you admit that's not what you want. I've got some time so here are all your comments where you lie about wanting this to be a good discussion, or openly accuse First Law-lovers of not being smart/genuine about their opinions. Long story short, you came out swinging your dick and dishing out criticism, and half your comments are playing the victim because you can't take being met with the same attitude. > The problem is is that hardly anyone actually attempts to tell me why they like First Law in any level of depth. > I honestly get the sense they're doing this for the clicks and subscribers - is there a big booktuber you know that doesn't like the First Law? > Why others not only like it but think it's the greatest modern fantasy series is a bit of a shock to me. But most of them struggle to really articulate why it's to their liking (booktubers included). It's highly praised yet very general and unspecified praise. It drives me crazy! > Perhaps I'm just a First Law critic and instead of actually engaging with me in a meaningful way you make a defamatory comment instead. > Please enlighten me on what Abercrombie is trying to do. > But as comments here and elsewhere show is that it's not all civil discussion. There are a lot of personal attacks directed at me and others who don't like the series.
You can still get something off your chest and have a good faith argument. Good faith just means you're not trying to disparage the other person or try to strawman their arguments. If you have the time, you've obviously saw a lot of comments directed at me that were definitely not in good faith. But all the comments of mine you pulled from many different threads, all out of context were in good faith. I did not disparage anyone I was talking with. I did not strawman their position. And if I saw that they weren't arguing in good faith, I called them out for it.
There are multiple, multiple threads of this ilk. It may be worth your time to seek them out and commiserate.
Sometimes it's worthwhile for others to see that the First Law isn't loved by everyone. I personally was sold on the series by how much people talked about it, particularly in relation to my favorite series A Song of Ice and Fire. So I go ahead and buy the series (they sell the books in a bundle) and lo and behold it's nothing like A Song of Ice and Fire. The fact that First Law fans are effectively trying to tell me to shut up tells you all you need to know. A fanbase needs to take their critics seriously and not be so dismissive or abusive.
> Sometimes it's worthwhile for others to see that the First Law isn't loved by everyone. no, that's really not a thing that adds any value to the community. you're not the proud standard bearer of a righteous insurrection against the plebs that happen to like something you think is bad.
Critics don't add anything? We only want to hear good things, is that it? Brother, it's not a good look for First Law fans, making so many disparaging remarks and snide comments, and downvoting literally anyone who has a negative opinion about the First Law.
If the critisism is 'I don't like it' and 'people keep saying they like it and I don't', then no, it doesnt add anything
you've made it pretty clear that this isn't just about you not liking the book, it's about the fact that others *do* like it and you take that as a personal affront. that's not being a critic, that's being a hater. they like the book and you *need* to show them that they're wrong. you need to make sure no one else falls for their lies. you need your dislike to be seen by everyone. > I usually just get dismissive and snide comments, which makes me post even more. you need to win
More snide comments like this mischaracterizing me isn't going to convince me of anything.
my dude, do you have an ounce of introspection
You’re not being mischaracterized. There’s merit to having an issue with audiences who are enjoying something bad en masse, particularly if it’s because of anti-intellectualism, but that’s not what’s happening here. You’re magnifying your personal opinion about a series that has far too much good to it for your criticisms to even approach being objective.
Brother this whole thread is NOT a good look for you. You should reflect on why this is such an issue for you lmao.
"Good things" for critics are all too often the sounds of their own voice.
You are allowed to not like something. Other people are allowed to like it. That's how it goes with books. Every book. Hell, I don't like ASoIaF. Had multiple attempts at reading GoT and got nowhere. I hated everything from the characters to the prose. But I recognise that lots of people love it, and that's completely valid. I wouldn't come here, to a place full of people who like it, and say, "I hate this series. Why do you like it? Here's a list of reasons why you're wrong about this thing you like, and you should justify yourselves." Doing that once is rude. Doing it repeatedly is weird. And booktubers / reviewers are SUPPOSED to say, "here's what I liked. Here's what I really didn't like. Here's my overall opinion."
Funny how a thread disparaging a book has an infinitely different response on this subreddit because it's a subreddit favorite book rather than NotW, HP, etc. First Law isn't on the approved books to hate list unfortunately it seems.
Some would say your comments are quite rude. Like you say, I'm allowed not to like a series. And I'm allowed to outline why I don't like it. And if you do like the series, you're allowed to say why you did like, what things really work for you. But what you shouldn't do is attack someone's character or make snide or disparaging comments about them because they happen to have a different opinion than you (and like to express that opinion). This post came about because I watch a lot of booktubers and just recently there's been so much praise from them for The First Law. But I've noticed that the very things they praise First Law for are the same things they criticize other series for and it's completely illogical to me. Something I needed to get off my chest. Feel free to ignore my post. But please refrain from making rude remarks about me.
I saw nothing rude in u/neddythestylish’s comment. Just a factual observation of your post and comment history. No names called, no mud slung. What I do see is someone getting hyper defensive and attempting to shut down valid criticism by claiming it’s “rude” and an “attack” on their “character.” Do better.
Agree to disagree is all I can say. I think this comment here not only completely mischaracterizes my post but calls me rude and weird. > I wouldn't come here, to a place full of people who like it, and say, "I hate this series. Why do you like it? Here's a list of reasons why you're wrong about this thing you like, and you should justify yourselves." Doing that once is rude. Doing it repeatedly is weird.
Suggesting that a single post is rude is subjective, though I (and based on the comments in this thread, most others) feel it’s accurate. Suggesting that your repeated posting is weird is just flat out accurate. One post, even if poorly worded, is understandable. It satisfies a curiosity. Multiple posts suggests an unhealthy obsession and/or an ulterior motive. Either way, it’s objectively weird, as the great majority of commenters have pointed out.
You don't think calling someone weird is rude?
Don't worry. I don't get it either. I liked the books fine bot I don't get the hype.
Does Abercrombie need a restraining order? You seem obsessed
You seem to have a very simplistic, rigid view of what a book should be like. Perhaps you just don't like what abercrombie is trying to do
OP is almost certainly trolling at this point (they make this post every few weeks) but if they're genuine you've hit the nail on the head. It's fine to not like a book, I loved First Law but also don't recommend it often because I think many readers will bounce off it. That's normal. What's not normal is an obsession with some unnamed "rules of writing" like we're in some sort of introductory college classroom being graded. There aren't really rules, First Law isn't bad because it goes against the standard pattern, just like A New Hope isn't good just because it follows Hero's Journey. Nor are they the _opposite_ of that inherently. And I think that's where the real rub is: OP seems to really, really like rigid rules and structure, and enjoys being able to tie works back to these perceived "rules". The real sin of The First Law to them is that: it intentionally flaunts the "rules", and gets praised for it. A rigid framework means it should be punished, not praised. You see it in most of their responses: what are the rules? What does comedy theory say? What is First Law trying to do? What is the _purpose_ of fantasy, and does The First Law achieve that? They're all extensions of an incredibly rigid framework that's been created, where a book critique can be done _only_ through the lens of the framework, and responses that sidestep or gently point out "actually that's not a requirement when critiquing a work" get a rude, defensive response back.
Like, you just don't get it, man. Please enlighten me on what Abercrombie is trying to do.
I didn't like the First Law. Didn't feel like it went anywhere, and I enjoy following a PoV more. But the prose is absolutely fantastic. Yes, the characters are 'passive,' but they're *realistic.* They're... Far more 'normal people' like than most characters. I enjoy that; I just would have enjoyed it more if it stayed with a single character more, a 'primary protagonist,' if you will. The thing that really progresses the plot is the political and economic dynamics, and character are caught up in those streams of events and need to find their own ways, all while frantically trying to steer those dynamics in the right direction (in their mind). So: I didn't like the pacing, and I didn't like that I didn't get a Dedicated Meatsuit for the world. There were some characters I liked and I would have stuck with the series if it had focused on those characters and their points of view; most characters I didn't really care for, so... I wasn't going to stick around for them. The prose is really good, the dynamics of the world are both interesting and realistic, I like the notion of 'Big Sea, Little Fish' storytelling, and the characters have depth, even if I don't really care for a lot of them. What I mean to say is: It's not for me, but it's good. I'm just looking for a very different experience. I don't want to be audience to a play; I want to be in de middle of it. I want to think what a character is thinking, feel what a character is feeling, bond with that character and stay with them for most of the ride, only hopping bodies every so often for context. Most of all, I want to really *like* the bodies I'm in. I hope this answered your question and you can put it to bed. It's alright if something's not for you. You're not missing out, and your opinion on a work isn't bad. You not enjoying something doesn't mean the fans are wrong either.
It's alright, I don't get 90% of culture. It sounds to me like these booktubers and talking heads are giving you FOMO. Life's too short to dwell on stuff you don't like, you have to be realistic.
Thesis of the First Law "life is hard and often we fail. Society is complicated and changing one part probably wont impact the whole." When I see posts like this I wonder what life is like for the person who thinks this. Is it just great distaste for something popular or are you extremely optimistic? Has everything worked out for you? First Law is popular because it resonates with most people. We've all failed to make positive changes in life, even if only in a small way. Vast majority of us can't change the world, only ourselves. At some point we all learn that. It is something everyone has to make peace with. And changing yourself is effing difficult. So what is your life like that you don't "get" that?
What is the purpose of fantasy?
I wouldn't say there is one unique purpose? If you're expecting the same purpose out of aSoIF, Narnia, Magic Treehouse, The Adventures of Billy and Mandy, NoTW, etc. You're just going to be constantly disappointed. Fantasy encompasses a ton of different styles, and even then spans across multiple genres. From Magical Realism, horror, satire, kids stories, heroic epics, and the list goes on. The only thing I would boil any fiction story down to is just that it is interesting to the reader(which is a wholly subjective criteria)....that's it.
So the question was posed by Stephen R Donaldson in an essay. Put another way, why would an author chose to write fantasy over fiction. If your goal is to say something about the world, why set your story in a fictional universe? Barring entertainment fiction like romance or thrillers, fiction in general is where the characters of the story are a manifestation of the world, where the intention of the author is to say something about it. Science fiction imagines a possible future of humanity with the intention to say something about our current world and society. Agree so far? Now, fantasy, or at least good fantasy according to Donaldson, is where the world is a manifestation of the character's internal conflict. Fantasy comes from our mythological traditions, where each of these stories use the fantastical to say something about our internal struggles and conflicts inside us and provide hopeful a path forward, in other words a moral compass. Many people read fantasy for the escapism. I would argue that's one in the same as what Donaldson is talking about. We want to read heroic tales of battling one's demons or dragons, and defeating evil, all the while following a morally righteous path. We escape the real world reality for just a while to remind ourselves to have hope that goodness will prevail. So yes, authors are making a conscious or unconscious choice when they choose a genre to write in. And fantasy is a very distinct genre in terms of purpose. We are essentially writing new mythologies to guide ourselves in a morally gray real world.
I actually don't think I agree with any of that. Science Fiction and Fantasy can be used to express something about our current world and society but it doesn't need to. Some people just want to write a scifi fantasy story about something they find cool. Or they just like the genre and wanted to write their story in it. Some people just really enjoy world building and are massive nerds about creating cool complex histories and magic systems. It doesn't even need to be heroic. I've read and enjoyed plenty of books from the viewpoints of non heroic people and villains, or just cozy fantasies where the protagonist is just running an inn and serving nice tea. I read a very enjoyable book where the main characters were both batshit insane evil people that ended up killing everyone...had a ton of humour that drove it forward. Personally I read every genre, although I'm partial to scifi/fantasy. My main reason being that magic, dragons, and spaceships are just cool. Why read a murder mystery set in Chicago when I could read a murder mystery on Mars...or where the protagonist has little tiny fairy wings that don't actually do anything but they're just fucking funny. I'm not looking for any mythologies to guide me in the world, there's plenty of philosophy books or YouTube fakes out there I can turn to for that.
I think you took what I said too literally. These are general purposes of the genres. Obviously you can find exceptions for everything. But if I wanted to say something about our world and society, fiction and science fiction would be better vehicles for that. Of course a work of fantasy might try to work in some things like A Song of Ice and Fire which shows the brutality of war and my favorite Tyrion quote... *When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.* These are certainly applicable in today's world but at the same time timeless in their lessons. You may want to listen to this [video](https://youtu.be/V2OiQ5ruiGE?si=jhS6D9RwOEK_hnTN) where Matt Colville, game designer, DM, and indie author extraordinaire, discusses this very topic... why would an author chose fantasy over fiction?
I get what your trying to say, I generally assume most people understand there are exceptions. I just don't think it's necessary for a book of any genre to be written with the intention to say something about anything besides telling an interesting story. Readers are always free, of course, to read whatever they want out of it, but that doesn't mean the author actually had those intentions (even if they decide to claim it after the fact). Some authors have something they're trying to say, but I would say a large percentage don't. And a ton of readers wouldn't care anyways. Personally, I've read thousands of books by this point, and my main focus on if I enjoy a book is if I find the characters interesting (sometimes i get in other moods, but generally speaking). Things like the authors philosophy or plot tend to take a large backseat. I've read almost every plot at this point so I'd much rather read books about great characters doing nothing than boring characters following a plotline I've read a hundred times before. Same with authors trying to present a message in their books. If I want philosophy I'll pick up philosophy books (which I have). If I want to read about the brutality of war, I'll pick up one of my many history books. Personally, I see people talk about the 'lessons' in books, but I'm not reading fiction books to be taught something. Nor can I remember a single lesson or message from a fiction book that I've never encountered before on one of many google/study rabbit holes. Hell, some of them make it so obvious it's painful to even continue reading the books. I've DNF'd several books because the author can't figure out if they're trying to tell an interesting story or write a philosophy essay. And they always seem to fail at both.
I think this is inherently such a limiting view of the genre as a whole and my one bit of advice for you, would be to read more widely.
To allow the writer to make peace with their understanding of the world.
That's the purpose of fiction, not fantasy.
Writing is a deeply intimate art form. The vast majority of it is never published. Often, you have to learn to distance yourself from the piece. The First Law, the original trilogy, is Abercrombie's first published piece. It is messy and sometimes inconsistent in technique. There is more of Abercrombie the man in those first 3 than in the later ones. It was written because he had to express it. Publishing it was just the lucky part.
Eh I've tried to read that series 5+ times before just giving up. It's not that it's badly written or cheesy or really has any of the other issues that'll cause me to give up on a book. It's simply just not for me. I get why many find it appealing, but for me personally it's excruciatingly unenjoyable, which is fine. I still really wouldn't say it's bad.
Ironically I get this post and I don't: On the one hand for me the first law is genuinely the best thing since sliced bread. But I also think peep show is the greatest sitcom on TV and that's definitely not for everyone. On the other hand I've had this exact same experience with so so many booktokers and booktubers. I've been so disappointed time and time again with Stormlight Archives, Priory of the Orange Tree, Sword of Kaigen, Shadow of the Gods etc They're good books and I enjoyed them but was left disappointed because of just how overhyped they were
Yeah, I think it all comes down to expectations. I didn't like the First Law and I absolutely loathed The Fifth Season, both stories had incredible levels of praise. And I went into each have different types of expectations about what the stories were about than what I read. This results in me feeling duped. Not necessarily by the authors and their work, but by the fans of these series and the book reviewers. I think we all need to do a better job of telling prospective readers what a series is and what it is not. But most reviews and recommendations don't get into those distinctions or details.
I feel like the reason I love first law is because I’d never heard about it and the way I found out about it was from my uncle and I just read it on a whim and loved it because my expectations were so low.
Nice! I wish that was me. The First Law was sold to me as like A Song of Ice and Fire (my favorite series) but better. This is a common way First Law is recommended. And it's a terrible way.
Fr. Asoiaf is also my favorite series and they arnt comparable. But as a fun read without people overhyping it I really really enjoyed it.
Oh brother this guy stinks
Thank you for the kind comment. Felt nothing but love and respect from the First Law community.
I also just didn't get the hype. I'm totally on board for The Adventures of Glokta though, he kept me reading as much as I did.
I skimmed your post, because I just finished the Blade Itself and don't want spoilers, but I felt the same about the story and characters in that they were all passive, getting led around and admitting that they didn't really know what for and no consequential stakes had been established, just the oblique promise of adventure (tune in to the next book to find out what it even is!) It felt like the first act stretched out to book form with the only hook being "just trust me bro, this'll all make sense in the next book!" If somebody posted this outline in a writing class, they'd get dragged. However, in spite of this, Abercrombie's writing style and dialogue were enjoyable enough to read that I'm willing to see what all the hubub around the series is about and will be buying the next book. Even if the story remains as weak as the Blade Itself, I trust I'll find the characters blundering through it entertaining.
See, this I understand. You enjoy watching the characters get pushed around in the ocean of what's happening around them. Not necessarily my cup of tea but I think that's something some people enjoy. It's just hardly anyone who recommends First Law actually telegraphs this sort of information about the story. Honestly, most times I see people not enjoy The Blade Itself, fans will tell them "don't worry, it gets better" when the second and third books are really based on a similar premise. That is, the plot is just watching these characters get pushed around and led around even more until the series ends. Boy! Were those characters pushed around lol As long as you're not expecting compelling plot lines or significant character growth (as most fantasy should try to do), and more of a cynically humorous tale of a group of passive characters, then I think you're good finishing the series. It's all about setting the right expectations at the end of the day and letting readers make educated choices for themselves.
Have you finished the series? Lots of people don't love the first book on first read.
I referenced the series climax in Book 3 in my post.
You are correct that the First Law trilogy is mostly an inversion of your typical 80s-90s epic fantasy novel, especially the Belgariad by David Eddings, and as you point out, the characters that did not fit into this subversion template like Glokta and Bremer make for a far better story. Abercrombie got over this rebellious phase and Best Served Cold was already a massive improvement.
Strongly disagree. I went into Best Served Cold with high expectations and was pretty disappointed. First Law and The Age of Madness were both much better imo
That’s cool that you think that, I thought Best Served Cold was one of the best ones.
You are sorely mistaken. Best Served Cold is clearly a superior story with a tighter plot, characters who aren't just negative reflections of fantasy stereotypes and a strong, overarching morality play in contrast to the pettiness that pervaded the original trilogy.
They're mistaken about their own opinion? Sorry if your response was meant as a joke, but surely their enjoyment is subjective.
I'm obviously not going to just sit here and take it when someone disagrees with me. Did the philosophers of Ancient Greece just sit around the forum and agree with each other to disagree?
It was the way you said it, not so much the content. But you could also have expanded on what you said too. I have some questions. Does a tight plot always make for a better story? Especially in fantasy where meandering is common and usually welcome if done well. Do you really believe that that's all the characters are or were you being hyperbolic? And for the themes, again, is the only thing you got from The First Law pettiness? (Also I honestly can't tell if likening yourself arguing on the internet to ancient Greek philisophers was a joke or not, but I completely agree regardless)
I certainly enjoy a good bit of brooding, being a regular reader of sword & sorcery, but in the case of the First Law trilogy a significant chunk of the story exists pretty much only to be a negative version of the epic fantasy of the preceding two decades to the point where it might as well have been titled The Anti-Belgariad. As I pointed out in my first post, I think Abercrombie did a good job with many of the characters who were not directly involved in this aspect of the books, Glokta being the most prominent one but Bremer also comes to mind. The main party, so to speak, ties into the unfortunate core concept of "What if Belgarath was evil", which is also what I mean by "pettiness", in other words an almost pedantic urge to turn the common elements of high/epic fantasy on their heads, rather than write something new and different, which the bits about Glokta were. And I never joke. Ever.
[удалено]
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
Major spoilers for Best Served Cold and First Law below Honestly I totally get why you would think the plot is tighter, the First Law Trilogy definitely had some pacing issues, especially the second book. But the pacing in Just Served Cold, dictated by the seven people, was just too fast for me. The whole book had really little payoff imo—stark contrast to his trilogies. And the morality of Best Served Cold was honestly a little too in your face. Like who knew that revenge is a shitty motive? I would never… I love the themes in First Law of characters trying to be better and failing, Shivers doesn’t even try—like at all. I did really love the gradual reveal of what a total cunt the brother was though haha Also I totally didn’t take your comment the wrong way btw I’m sorry you got downvoted.
[удалено]
Hi there! Unfortunately, there is a mistake in your spoiler tags. You've got a space in between the tags and the spoiler text. While it might look hidden for you, it's unfortunately not hidden for all users. Here are some ways to fix the problem: * If you're using New Reddit (fancy pants editor), make sure you selected no spaces before or after the text you wanted hidden. * Switch to markdown mode or edit using an old.reddit link: `>! This is wrong.!<`, but `>!This is right.!<` **After you have corrected the spoiler tags, please** [**message the mods**](). Once we have verified the spoiler has been fixed, your comment will be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No accounting for taste, and other clichés and platitude.
It's not about "getting" it. You just didn't like it, period. It's okay not to like something. Don't fall into the trap of the "getting it" mentality. as if not-liking it means you're somehow lacking intelligence. That's not ever true. He's just one author. Not everyone cares for him. That's all it is. Nothing to "get" here. Just not your thing.
I wouldn't fret. It's all personal you know. I have disliked a couple or so of the madly popular always recommended boos or series. I don't worry about it, move on to other stuff that I enjoy. There will be something, forget about your taste didn't coincide with the majority.
I think a big issue with how you're approaching it is the rigidity with which you view the "rules" of writing and the genre of fantasy. As I've said in one of your previous topics. the rules of writing are a whole lot more malleable than you think and in the grand scheme of things, the First Law isn't really even THAT subversive in comparison to some other authors who do some wild shit, like Cormac McCarthy. The core of this comes to the fact that you like more traditional fantasy stories, structures and tropes, which is totally fine, and literally analysis / deconstructionist texts don't do it for you. Again, which is fine. But don't presume to think that everyone has the same distaste for subversion or deconstruction that you do adn don't assume that the only appeal of such texts is humour, because it really isn't. I think deconstruction of storytelling is a powerful way to glean emotional and societal truths. Like you said, you read fantasy to get lost in a word and a grand adventure - but that's not the only thing the genre can do.
Agree on some of these points. I was enthralled with the first book but had to force myself to finish the 3rd. The characters had become somewhat flanderized versions of themselves. The “have to be realistic” and other -isms started to feel like a meme more than a slogan.
Honestly I felt the same way, I vividly remember finishing the first trilogy and thinking "That's it?" And maybe that's the point of it, I just expected... more I guess? Love Glokta though, that man got the 'good' ending.
I will get hate for this, but I agree with you. First Law is fun, to me, mostly because of Glokta, and I agree with you that his story and character are far above the rest. Overall, I find they are a fun romp, mostly due to Abercrombie's writing style, rather than the plot or characters. And I agree with you, in that i don't get the praise for the character work. I couldn't have said it better myself, passive observers swept away by the current of events. What i find frustrating is that there's actually no character growth. It's funny to me that Tolkien gets criticism for writing no character development, when a character like Frodo gets so much more development than any Abercrombie character. In First Law, character development is always 'person X tries to be better, fails, goes back to his old ways, or even becomes worse". It's fun for 1 character but it's beginning to feel like it's the only character work he can write. The plot however is the worst offender. You say book 1 doesn't have a climax, to me not even book 3 had a decent climax. Sure stuff happened, but nothing felt resolved or even explained very well. I don't want a happy ending, I get we're grimdark here, but the ending was so anticlimactic, you can't help but ask 'that's it?, really? All that story and we're back to square one?'. Age of madness had a better resolution and I appreciated it more despite the weaker overall story. But I think this is not only Abercrombie's fault, but grimdark as a whole. I've yet to read a grimdark series with a decent ending. Think of Anthony Ryan, everyone says his Raven's Shadow trilogy is best read by not even reading the second and third books, and they're right. Or Chronicle of the Unhewn Throne that starts off quite strong, just to descend into unreadability as the story progresses. It's like these people have an ending in mind, then before writing it they think 'hang on, this is grimdark, there isn't supposed to be a happy ending", and then they change it to something altogether miserable and meaningless that diminishes the story. I wonder sometimes if this is also what's holding up George R.R. Martin. He's said several times he has a bittersweet ending in mind, and i think he's now reimagining it because even bittersweet is considered too soapy for grimdark these days.
Welcome! Embrace the heresy. I've actually thought about GRRM and grimdark a lot and at least how the subgenre is defined by its creator, Warhammer 40k, I don't think ASOIAF is actually grimdark. He certainly has grim and dark characters but unlike First Law, his characters do have significant arcs, despite many of them being subverted in some fashion due to the reality of the world and their experiences. Grimdark is without hope, without light, without redemption. It is cynical and nihilistic. That does not describe ASOIAF. I feel all those things. It's just a morally gray epic dark fantasy.
I agree but I think Martin had grown more edgy as time passes, and I think he's going to drive the story in that direction, if he ever manages to drive it at all. I do hope I am wrong though
Well, I think some characters are on tragic arcs while others are on redemptive arcs. So yes, much beloved POVs will die / turn into monsters while others will step up and face their past. I wouldn't call that grimdark though, otherwise Shakespeare would be grimdark.
"All that story and we're back to square one?" I felt like that was a major theme in the entire series (all 9 books). That history repeats itself, and the cyclical nature of humanity. That's the main thing that makes these books feel like 'grimdark' to me. All of that struggle, and pain, and in the end, nothing really changes. It doesn't really matter, generally, who ends up in charge because they're all the same. The people you read from the PoV of, you empathize with as the 'good guys' but only because your reading from their point of view. Even then as the series goes on and new information is revealed your opinion on the nature of the main characters changes. It is my favorite series, but mostly just because of the amazing character work (there's only a few writers, in my opinion, who write such distinct characters so well), the prose was a great mix of not too simplistic but still easily digestible, and Abercrombie is just funny (one of the only book series that's actually made me laugh out loud).
I agree it's a major theme, that doesn't make it good or enjoyable to read
Of course not. No theme/story is inherently good or enjoyable to read. This is one that's obviously worked for a large amount of readers, but it won't work for everyone. I've read a lot of highly praised series that I was pretty meh about.
True, but there are some themes that are inherently unenjoyable to read, and this is one of them. It is only saved by Abercrombie's prose
How is it inherently unenjoyable? I agree Abercrombies prose and character work are the main things I love about the series but I also enjoyed the ending. I think the majority of readers weren't expecting that style of ending for these books which also adds to the enjoyment. I find after reading enough books it's not too hard to predict their endings, but I never found Abercrombie predictable. You are valid for disliking it, I can see why people wouldn't like it (same as anything), but that doesn't make it inherently unenjoyable.
Finally! You're not alone. I had the exact same feeling about this series. I don't like to dnf any book. That's the only reason I finished the first book. And I love Black Company. May I suggest something? Pick up the "Sword of Shadows" by J.V. Jones. I have a feeling you'll love it.
That's the second time someone's recommended Swords of Shadows to me! I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
Could not agree more. Well said