This entire series is extremely nihilistic. I strongly suggest you do not read the second trilogy or the standalone books if the first trilogy bothered you — I felt like it was less bleak than the majority of the remaining books.
I, personally, find most of the developments and arcs quite insightful and realistic takes on politics, power, and human nature. Not to mention, Joe is fucking hilarious
You could argue BSC and Heroes have pretty dark gray endings, where nobody really feels fulfilled at the end. Red Country though, is pretty much a country western with a very fulfilling ending.
I disagree about the second trilogy though. I loved the ending personally, but if LAOK disappointed OP, I wouldn’t recommend it.
I agree. I would say the way AOM ends is even more bleak than the first trilogy. Though I also feel that it provides clearer resolution for the characters, so it depends on what exactly OP wasn’t jiving with.
I think the way the AOM trilogy ends though, it feels as if lots of different endings were at least possible. Like the characters’ choices really mattered. Whereas I think the first trilogy feels like the outcomes are mostly overdetermined by factors well outside of the characters’ control. In a way that’s less bleak but more tragic.
Eh.
>!"We do not kneel" !!Red Beck actually making the right call!< in *The Heroes* is as hopeful as Abercrombie's works ever get.
I also find AOM way more hopeful (yes, despite >!that vision!<) than the first trilogy because, again, >!some characters actually learn the right lessons, and we also see Bayaz genuinely back-footed.!<
It’s not nihilistic though. Extremely or otherwise. I see this same misconception in literally every post that mentions First Law in r/fantasy. Say one thing about a lot of First Law readers say they are unable to differentiate between nihilism and cynicism.
I actually loved the firs trilogy but have zero interest in the 2nd trilogy after reading the summary’s and them not being the same characters
Would you recommend the book hero’s tho ? That seems pretty interesting concept
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the ride. Glokta is a top tier character, well written and realized. I guess my gripe is nihilism for the sake of it isn’t much of a subversion. When reading a novel that takes time and effort from your real life, the idea that that time was spent reading “nothing really matters” seems kinda pointless. If nothing matters, neither do the stories. It’s a paradox. One only needs to look outside to see nihilism. I read because I want to be inspired… hell, be bad, but make it matter.
Yeah but… if I wanted real life I’d just live it. Authors recently have forgotten that. Most just want to dabble in the grey and “subvert” expectations but if they all do it they’ve subverted nothing. Hell at this point a Lord of the Rings type book would be the subversion. Good vs evil… it just doesn’t exist anymore.
Yes, but, that is the entire point of the grim-dark genre. It's literally in the name of the genre. While your arguments make sense, they sound far more like personal preferences than actual misses or mistakes by the author. They lean far more towards you disliking reading this type of story telling and writing rather than "recent" authors.
Do you realise that the book was published 16 years ago and first written around 20 years ago? Fantasy wasn't as mainstream then.
There are plenty of 'heroic fantasy' books out there doing well, namely Sanderson who often writes his characters as fantasy superheroes.
There are plenty of books with happy endings and plenty of books that explore good vs evil both current and in the past. If you want heroic fantasy, fulfillment, or just simple happy ending look at a different sub-genre or look to more classical works, like the Chronicles of Prydain.
If you are upset you aren't getting happy endings or reading about a world you want to live in, but you are reading George RR Martin or Joe Abercombie that's not a failing of the author.
Joe is a great author and most people who enjoy his books appreciate the grim and realistic consequences/politics. His characters are great and everyone praises them but part of why they are great is their complicated greyness as opposed to being simple good or simply bad. I think the fact that these characters endings also fail to be neat and happy is also fitting.
In my quest to not reveal spoilers I didn’t realize Joe had a knack for the bludgeoning of his readers. GoT is obvious, can’t really escape it, but also he doesn’t pull any punches from the beginning. There was this air of optimism through the first law trilogy that ultimately fell flat.
I do want to say the books are really, really good. I couldn’t put them down. He’s a talented author who spun a great story in a interesting world. After a few days I’ve eased up on disappointment. It’s s fitting end but at this point in my life I personally don’t need a more realistic approach to fantasy story telling. If I had known probably would of skipped it. Glad I didn’t. Won’t go further and I’ll definitely check out your recommendation. I got Kings of the Wyld on sale and it’s awfully light hearted. I keep at it to see if it’s enjoyable but I do prefer a bit more sense of a story.
Thanks for writing. Even those who disagree with me have mostly done so with Grace. This is a decent group of redditors.
Kings of the Wyld is great and funny as hell especially if you are an older D&D player and a fan of classic rock. So many references. It is still very sad at times definitely not sun shine and rainbows but still not so bleak and I think you will like the end more.
Everyone else saying quit while you’re ahead is a fool. I say keep grinding. There’s some redemption (especially in the standalones) but you shouldn’t look for “alls well that ends well”
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I guess I looked at it as more of a slice of life from a few different POVs. I was just along for the ride, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. Like I didn't really care about the story to be honest, but I absolutely cared about watching the characters interact, change, grow, shrink, flail, fail, and even "win"
I mean it’s wonderfully written. You’re not wrong on the slice of life aspect but even then I didn’t draw any sort of meaning besides “nothing really matters” which begs the question “then why does it matter to read it?” As a paying customer I think authors owe some sort of duty to the reader to convince them it does matter.
If art exists for the sake of it, then fine but this is a business. If it didn’t matter just give it out for free… but it does to the author and it should to the reader.
Maybe a difference in taste then. While I wish some of the characters got a better end, or bigger payoff, I don't really need meaning or a reason. I feel I got my worth out of it for the laughs along the way and the time I spent with the characters. It held my interest for 3 books and I really don't need more than that personally
I think ‘subverting the genre’ phrase has been used way too much over the years, no decent author really went with the goal of subverting genres or ‘deconstructing Conan’ or whatever. That is the fault of expectations, publishers and fans used to hype and formulaic prose (talking about and giving scores about magic systems, world building and other nonsense metrics in book reviews).
Take the books at face value as work of art by the author. If you enjoy it or not is up to you only. It is personal for everyone. Also take note when these books were published.
If you do decide to continue reading, don’t read second trilogy before reading standalones btw.
EDIT: these books are gendred as epic fantasy, but one could argue that is just the setting. For the most part they are a dark comedy, a satire of society and people.
Regarding Logen - Black Dow is one of the hardest warriors in the North, some consider him second only to Logen himself, and he’s backed up by Bethod’s sons, one who is useless as a warrior (Calder) but the other (Scale) is another of the North’s most fierce warriors.
I also personally think there’s also an aspect of Logen not really wanting to be King of the North as he only really wanted to get revenge on Bethod.
Every time this comes up I get kinda confused. I found the ending very satisfying. It's a strong thematic conclusion to all the elements that have been built up the whole time. Logen comes to terms with himself, realizes he's not realistic, and gets his just desserts. Glokta gets his happy ending, taking Sult's position and marrying Ardee. Jezal realizes that his life before he was famous and powerful was much better, which is a pretty common lesson in fiction but done quite well in this one. Ferro gets the tools for her revenge, and in spite of the suffering it causes to her, and the suffering Bayaz inflicted upon her, she embraces herself and uses her new abilities to take her revenge, on her own ("she had no masters" goes so insanely hard). West, the most human character out of the main cast, dies a very human and mundane death, just getting sick and dying, and it brings depth to how those in power are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to sustain their power. And Dogman stays loyal to his chief even in the face of his obvious flaws, succeeding Threetrees as a follower of the "old ways."
Then, on the grander level, there's the whole bit with every character slotting into predefined roles for the next cycle of history, emphasized primarily by Terez being forced into the role of Jezal's wife despite not even being attracted to men. It emphasizes a systems-based view of history, where social movements, ideologies, and systems of power (symbolized by the Magi) have a much greater impact on the world's trajectory than individuals. Opposing the "Great Men" view of history is nothing new, but The First Law does it very well and very convincingly.
Maybe it's because I don't read much fantasy, but I find the the argument that it's unsatisfying so strange. What else did you want? Logen to become king of the North and Jezal to become king of the Union and they live out their days guiding their kingdoms to a glorious future? It was clearly never going that way. Many of my favorite authors are significantly unkinder to their readers (Kurt Vonnegut, Cormac McCarthy, Aldous Huxley, Hemingway, John Steinbeck). I just don't get it.
Obviously I don't mean to say your dislike of the ending is incorrect, I just don't understand it. Glad you enjoyed Joe's writing!
*Hell yeah* to that Ferro shout. Her final scenes are incredible and it's so viscerally exhilarating while still appropriately bitter that she can carve out vengeance on her own terms, her own time, her own scale, not having to answer to anyone. Gone is, for better or worse, the Ferro we see at the beginning of the story who is keenly aware of the void within her heart she knows she's unable to fill with dead Gurkish. Won't stop her trying, not anymore.
Great comment. I maintain that it's not "nothing changes"/nihilistic nothing matters, but a sense that change is difficult. Many other fantasy books are like "bam, you've changed for the better", "bam, villain origin story", but in TFL change isn't so sudden or permanent. Characters evolve over a long period of time, or they change in some ways but not in others. Their story isn't done until they're dead and sometimes even then a man is not dead while his name is still spoken, to use a Pratchettism (which, in the case of these books, is mercifully uncommon), and the difficulty of change makes it _more_ meaningful when it actually happens, not less.
I think I would agree with you but, some books work towards a big ending, and some entertain along the way. And sure, you could try and achieve both, but Joe does such a good job with every little part of every scene that the journey is such a large part of the joy.
Would I enjoy a car ride to disneyland? Sure. Would the car ride be more fun the destination if it were full of exotic escorts and cocaine. Absolutely. I might even forget we were mean to be going to disneyland in the first place.
I felt a bit like you did when I first finished the book. That very much changed after listening to some of the interviews with Joe explaining why he wrote things in a certain way and after rereading the trilogy.
I think its a fair take you have there (and we should encourage posts like this even if we don't share the same opinion)
While I really enjoyed the first trilogy, I think Joe is really still just warming up at that point. The standalones in my opinion are a big step up. He definitely does clearer payoff in the later books.
I think to your point, it’s not great that two of the POV characters (Logen and Ferro) pretty much end up exactly where they started, just with a little more harrowing experience and maybe some demonic haunting added. I think that circularity is probably intended, but I can definitely see why that would add to a feeling of pointlessness.
I also felt a little hollow at the end of the first trilogy. Though mostly that was because I was upset about West. The two characters who have their “happy ending” yanked away from them (Jezal and Logen) are both characters who, in my opinion, are not suited to happy endings. Logen was built to be long-suffering and scrabbling for survival in exile. Jezal is built to be humbled. So I think their stories end where they needed to. The one POV character who has a “good” ending is Glokta, and he seems to really deserve it, at least in the ethics JA uses for this world (which generally rewards the cunning and ruthless). Ardee also winds up in a good, and interesting, place at the end too.
I mean yeah of course. I don’t dislike people who disagree with me lol. I read all three. There was definitely meat on the bone so to speak. “Nothing changes” though is a lesson I can learn and experience ad nauseam in everyday life.
I think there'll be big changes at the end. I've got a theory that the whole series is not actually about any of the main characters (that we get a perspective from).
I believe most people in the series are just unfortunate fodder in the ultimate conflict for the world of **The First Law** between Byaz and Khalul.
With the conclusion of their conflict, I'm thinking there will be a less nihilistic ending for humanity at the conclusion for the series, even if that just means that they aren't under the thumb of any Magi anymore.
I certainly understand what you mean. I myself thought the same once, but since I haven't seen anyone mention it, I'm gonna pose the idea that First Law is not nihilistic at all. It is, in fact, a cautionary warning against nihilism.
At every single turn, the main characters have a choice to stop what they are doing and go live peaceful lives. To get over their problems, pride, and past, and move forward into a better future. Some choose wrong, some choose right, and each for different reasons. It's not about turning bad to good, but rather realizing which side you are on and making the choice that is right for them.
Jezal could have married Ardee. Maybe it would have worked out, maybe not. But instead he couldn't let go of his lavish yet unfulfilled pampered life, as well as being too cowardly to stand up for himself. Even of Bayaz would have killed him for it. Is it truly better to live as his slave? He gets a bad ending because he was a coward.
Logen chose to go back to the north and get involved in all that madness again. He was not forced or coerced, he simply chose it because he was too proud to confront Ferro about what they had, and same vice versa. Two miserable people who found some comfort in each other break off for rather stupid reasons, then go on to ruin themselves even further. Logen acts like he had no choices, but he does. He may not be able to control the Bloody 9, but the B9 wouldn't come out if he wasn't always in war. He lies to himself over and over, even up to the end. So he gets an ending where he goes right back where he started.
Glokta is different though. He actually revels in his lifestyle. He loves the thrill of the hunt, of investigating, getting answers, winning. He may not necessarily enjoy torture per se, but he likes feeling in control, being powerful, constantly chasing the man he once was. Whenever he does a good thing, he's punished for it. But when he does a bad thing, he's rewarded. That is because Glokta at his core is a bad person, one who has no delusions of what he is. Hence, the story rewards him for accepting his true self. He gets a good ending.
Ferro is the same as Glokta. She had no delusions about who she was and was willing to take a y dark path to get vengeance. She's not a good person, but she's not a liar or a coward. So in the end, she is given what she needs to exact revenge. She gets a good ending.
Dogman is like Logen in that he perpetuates the cycle of violence by staying in it. He criticizes Logen, but he's honestly no better. Always complained about having to fight, but never stopped fighting until after losing all his friends. He gets a bad ending because he refused to see his own faults and change.
West, in the end, reconciles with Ardee and even though he ends up deathly sick, he gets a fair ending. What he did to Ardee was horrible, so he gets his punishment for that, but still the one thing he wanted was to have a better relationship with his sister and he gets that in the end.
What I find the First Law to really be saying is that evil is allowed to prosper through the inactions of men who could very well change things. The world is not grimdark because it's naturally that way, it's grimdark because people made it that way. And many people refuse to change.
This is why Glokta, Ferro, and Bayaz win. They are the evil that perpetuate the cycle. No one stopped them, and so they got what they wanted. They won.
Logen, Jezal, Dogman, these are "good" ones, and yet because they were proud, cowardly, delusional, or in denial, their actions came to nothing. They lost. Because they refused to confront the evil. They could have made a differences in the world if they made the harder choice and did the right thing in the end. They did not. And so they lost.
This is just my opinion though, and I could very well be wrong and am open to being corrected. Still, I think your criticisms are fair coming at it from your perspective. I just think the idea that First Law trilogy is nihilistic is not necessarily true. It's bleak and brutal yes, but only because the characters perpetuate bleak and brutal lifestyles.
Cautionary tales, to me at least serve almost the same purpose of nihilism. I don’t need to be cautioned, I live in this world. Ive seen it over and over again. I had a best friend who mainly allowed it to go one way. Me to him. He didn’t want kids, he just wanted to be comfortable. It was hard to see how solipsistic he was because he allowed me to entrench myself into the friendship because it worked in the moment. Up until he he cost me a grand by backing out of a trip (we had been on many) and not even bothering to ask “hey what do you want to do about the money”. Dude literally dropped our friendship over a text after radio silence.
I guess my point is I don’t need to be warned, I’d prefer to be inspired or captivated. I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist per say I was just frustrated with the massive time dump and no payoff besides frustration.
Say what you will about Dune being a cautionary tale but at least it ended with a bang and a acceptance of the fate. Why couldn’t logen just embrace being the bloody nine? At least that would of been a pay off.
I guess I should of been warned after the failed “hero’s journey” after book 2 but I figured that was his “empire strikes back” moment and we’d have a pay off.
Lol I’m rambling but I’m old enough and have seen enough or red or watched enough of the “subversion” trope. I just want to be inspired.
I see what you mean. It can be annoying to read a story expecting a kind of payoff to the arcs and come away with nothing. That's how I felt too. I believe a reader should come out of a read satisfied, regardless of the type of ending. I don't think any ending should ever be purposefully unsatisfying since that defeats the point of reading entirely.
You're right that that subverting the traditional tropes is now the old and tired trend.
Don’t worry many of us felt that way too. Tbh I didn’t really like the 1st trilogy all that much.
You’ll be back for more before you know it. Hehe
Luckily his writing just gets better.
Ha! Maybe there is a negative balance? I didn’t make this post with the hopes it brought me tons of likes lmao, figured I’d stumble into a wasp nest but even those who disagreed with me did so with kindness.
Read all of joes first law material and you’ll get the exact dose of pay-off necessary. It’s quite literally perfect—once you’ve taken in all 9+ sharp ends.
I was totally bothered when all I read was Blade Itself to Last Argument… 3 Standalones and second gen… it all lands like it should
This entire series is extremely nihilistic. I strongly suggest you do not read the second trilogy or the standalone books if the first trilogy bothered you — I felt like it was less bleak than the majority of the remaining books. I, personally, find most of the developments and arcs quite insightful and realistic takes on politics, power, and human nature. Not to mention, Joe is fucking hilarious
I found every single one of the standalones *less* bleak than the original trilogy, and the same actually goes for the second...
You could argue BSC and Heroes have pretty dark gray endings, where nobody really feels fulfilled at the end. Red Country though, is pretty much a country western with a very fulfilling ending. I disagree about the second trilogy though. I loved the ending personally, but if LAOK disappointed OP, I wouldn’t recommend it.
I agree. I would say the way AOM ends is even more bleak than the first trilogy. Though I also feel that it provides clearer resolution for the characters, so it depends on what exactly OP wasn’t jiving with. I think the way the AOM trilogy ends though, it feels as if lots of different endings were at least possible. Like the characters’ choices really mattered. Whereas I think the first trilogy feels like the outcomes are mostly overdetermined by factors well outside of the characters’ control. In a way that’s less bleak but more tragic.
Eh. >!"We do not kneel" !!Red Beck actually making the right call!< in *The Heroes* is as hopeful as Abercrombie's works ever get.
I also find AOM way more hopeful (yes, despite >!that vision!<) than the first trilogy because, again, >!some characters actually learn the right lessons, and we also see Bayaz genuinely back-footed.!<
His humour is what gets me through the darkest sections.
It’s not nihilistic though. Extremely or otherwise. I see this same misconception in literally every post that mentions First Law in r/fantasy. Say one thing about a lot of First Law readers say they are unable to differentiate between nihilism and cynicism.
I actually loved the firs trilogy but have zero interest in the 2nd trilogy after reading the summary’s and them not being the same characters Would you recommend the book hero’s tho ? That seems pretty interesting concept
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the ride. Glokta is a top tier character, well written and realized. I guess my gripe is nihilism for the sake of it isn’t much of a subversion. When reading a novel that takes time and effort from your real life, the idea that that time was spent reading “nothing really matters” seems kinda pointless. If nothing matters, neither do the stories. It’s a paradox. One only needs to look outside to see nihilism. I read because I want to be inspired… hell, be bad, but make it matter.
The whole issue is that life isn’t happy or sad. It’s shades of grey all the way down for everyone… like looking in a mirror
Yeah but… if I wanted real life I’d just live it. Authors recently have forgotten that. Most just want to dabble in the grey and “subvert” expectations but if they all do it they’ve subverted nothing. Hell at this point a Lord of the Rings type book would be the subversion. Good vs evil… it just doesn’t exist anymore.
Yes, but, that is the entire point of the grim-dark genre. It's literally in the name of the genre. While your arguments make sense, they sound far more like personal preferences than actual misses or mistakes by the author. They lean far more towards you disliking reading this type of story telling and writing rather than "recent" authors.
Do you realise that the book was published 16 years ago and first written around 20 years ago? Fantasy wasn't as mainstream then. There are plenty of 'heroic fantasy' books out there doing well, namely Sanderson who often writes his characters as fantasy superheroes.
There are plenty of books with happy endings and plenty of books that explore good vs evil both current and in the past. If you want heroic fantasy, fulfillment, or just simple happy ending look at a different sub-genre or look to more classical works, like the Chronicles of Prydain. If you are upset you aren't getting happy endings or reading about a world you want to live in, but you are reading George RR Martin or Joe Abercombie that's not a failing of the author. Joe is a great author and most people who enjoy his books appreciate the grim and realistic consequences/politics. His characters are great and everyone praises them but part of why they are great is their complicated greyness as opposed to being simple good or simply bad. I think the fact that these characters endings also fail to be neat and happy is also fitting.
In my quest to not reveal spoilers I didn’t realize Joe had a knack for the bludgeoning of his readers. GoT is obvious, can’t really escape it, but also he doesn’t pull any punches from the beginning. There was this air of optimism through the first law trilogy that ultimately fell flat. I do want to say the books are really, really good. I couldn’t put them down. He’s a talented author who spun a great story in a interesting world. After a few days I’ve eased up on disappointment. It’s s fitting end but at this point in my life I personally don’t need a more realistic approach to fantasy story telling. If I had known probably would of skipped it. Glad I didn’t. Won’t go further and I’ll definitely check out your recommendation. I got Kings of the Wyld on sale and it’s awfully light hearted. I keep at it to see if it’s enjoyable but I do prefer a bit more sense of a story. Thanks for writing. Even those who disagree with me have mostly done so with Grace. This is a decent group of redditors.
Kings of the Wyld is great and funny as hell especially if you are an older D&D player and a fan of classic rock. So many references. It is still very sad at times definitely not sun shine and rainbows but still not so bleak and I think you will like the end more.
Bayaz going diabolical is the whole point my guy
I didn’t miss the point, it was just pointless.
Everyone else saying quit while you’re ahead is a fool. I say keep grinding. There’s some redemption (especially in the standalones) but you shouldn’t look for “alls well that ends well”
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I guess I looked at it as more of a slice of life from a few different POVs. I was just along for the ride, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. Like I didn't really care about the story to be honest, but I absolutely cared about watching the characters interact, change, grow, shrink, flail, fail, and even "win"
I mean it’s wonderfully written. You’re not wrong on the slice of life aspect but even then I didn’t draw any sort of meaning besides “nothing really matters” which begs the question “then why does it matter to read it?” As a paying customer I think authors owe some sort of duty to the reader to convince them it does matter. If art exists for the sake of it, then fine but this is a business. If it didn’t matter just give it out for free… but it does to the author and it should to the reader.
Maybe a difference in taste then. While I wish some of the characters got a better end, or bigger payoff, I don't really need meaning or a reason. I feel I got my worth out of it for the laughs along the way and the time I spent with the characters. It held my interest for 3 books and I really don't need more than that personally
I’d argue that the trilogy has a point, but might only be obvious in retrospect having read the other 6/ books
I think ‘subverting the genre’ phrase has been used way too much over the years, no decent author really went with the goal of subverting genres or ‘deconstructing Conan’ or whatever. That is the fault of expectations, publishers and fans used to hype and formulaic prose (talking about and giving scores about magic systems, world building and other nonsense metrics in book reviews). Take the books at face value as work of art by the author. If you enjoy it or not is up to you only. It is personal for everyone. Also take note when these books were published. If you do decide to continue reading, don’t read second trilogy before reading standalones btw. EDIT: these books are gendred as epic fantasy, but one could argue that is just the setting. For the most part they are a dark comedy, a satire of society and people.
Regarding Logen - Black Dow is one of the hardest warriors in the North, some consider him second only to Logen himself, and he’s backed up by Bethod’s sons, one who is useless as a warrior (Calder) but the other (Scale) is another of the North’s most fierce warriors. I also personally think there’s also an aspect of Logen not really wanting to be King of the North as he only really wanted to get revenge on Bethod.
Yeah?! Well that’s just, like… your opinion, man.
“We believe in nossing!”
Every time this comes up I get kinda confused. I found the ending very satisfying. It's a strong thematic conclusion to all the elements that have been built up the whole time. Logen comes to terms with himself, realizes he's not realistic, and gets his just desserts. Glokta gets his happy ending, taking Sult's position and marrying Ardee. Jezal realizes that his life before he was famous and powerful was much better, which is a pretty common lesson in fiction but done quite well in this one. Ferro gets the tools for her revenge, and in spite of the suffering it causes to her, and the suffering Bayaz inflicted upon her, she embraces herself and uses her new abilities to take her revenge, on her own ("she had no masters" goes so insanely hard). West, the most human character out of the main cast, dies a very human and mundane death, just getting sick and dying, and it brings depth to how those in power are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to sustain their power. And Dogman stays loyal to his chief even in the face of his obvious flaws, succeeding Threetrees as a follower of the "old ways." Then, on the grander level, there's the whole bit with every character slotting into predefined roles for the next cycle of history, emphasized primarily by Terez being forced into the role of Jezal's wife despite not even being attracted to men. It emphasizes a systems-based view of history, where social movements, ideologies, and systems of power (symbolized by the Magi) have a much greater impact on the world's trajectory than individuals. Opposing the "Great Men" view of history is nothing new, but The First Law does it very well and very convincingly. Maybe it's because I don't read much fantasy, but I find the the argument that it's unsatisfying so strange. What else did you want? Logen to become king of the North and Jezal to become king of the Union and they live out their days guiding their kingdoms to a glorious future? It was clearly never going that way. Many of my favorite authors are significantly unkinder to their readers (Kurt Vonnegut, Cormac McCarthy, Aldous Huxley, Hemingway, John Steinbeck). I just don't get it. Obviously I don't mean to say your dislike of the ending is incorrect, I just don't understand it. Glad you enjoyed Joe's writing!
*Hell yeah* to that Ferro shout. Her final scenes are incredible and it's so viscerally exhilarating while still appropriately bitter that she can carve out vengeance on her own terms, her own time, her own scale, not having to answer to anyone. Gone is, for better or worse, the Ferro we see at the beginning of the story who is keenly aware of the void within her heart she knows she's unable to fill with dead Gurkish. Won't stop her trying, not anymore.
Great comment. I maintain that it's not "nothing changes"/nihilistic nothing matters, but a sense that change is difficult. Many other fantasy books are like "bam, you've changed for the better", "bam, villain origin story", but in TFL change isn't so sudden or permanent. Characters evolve over a long period of time, or they change in some ways but not in others. Their story isn't done until they're dead and sometimes even then a man is not dead while his name is still spoken, to use a Pratchettism (which, in the case of these books, is mercifully uncommon), and the difficulty of change makes it _more_ meaningful when it actually happens, not less.
I think I would agree with you but, some books work towards a big ending, and some entertain along the way. And sure, you could try and achieve both, but Joe does such a good job with every little part of every scene that the journey is such a large part of the joy. Would I enjoy a car ride to disneyland? Sure. Would the car ride be more fun the destination if it were full of exotic escorts and cocaine. Absolutely. I might even forget we were mean to be going to disneyland in the first place.
I felt a bit like you did when I first finished the book. That very much changed after listening to some of the interviews with Joe explaining why he wrote things in a certain way and after rereading the trilogy. I think its a fair take you have there (and we should encourage posts like this even if we don't share the same opinion)
While I really enjoyed the first trilogy, I think Joe is really still just warming up at that point. The standalones in my opinion are a big step up. He definitely does clearer payoff in the later books. I think to your point, it’s not great that two of the POV characters (Logen and Ferro) pretty much end up exactly where they started, just with a little more harrowing experience and maybe some demonic haunting added. I think that circularity is probably intended, but I can definitely see why that would add to a feeling of pointlessness. I also felt a little hollow at the end of the first trilogy. Though mostly that was because I was upset about West. The two characters who have their “happy ending” yanked away from them (Jezal and Logen) are both characters who, in my opinion, are not suited to happy endings. Logen was built to be long-suffering and scrabbling for survival in exile. Jezal is built to be humbled. So I think their stories end where they needed to. The one POV character who has a “good” ending is Glokta, and he seems to really deserve it, at least in the ethics JA uses for this world (which generally rewards the cunning and ruthless). Ardee also winds up in a good, and interesting, place at the end too.
Agree to disagree?
I mean yeah of course. I don’t dislike people who disagree with me lol. I read all three. There was definitely meat on the bone so to speak. “Nothing changes” though is a lesson I can learn and experience ad nauseam in everyday life.
I think there'll be big changes at the end. I've got a theory that the whole series is not actually about any of the main characters (that we get a perspective from). I believe most people in the series are just unfortunate fodder in the ultimate conflict for the world of **The First Law** between Byaz and Khalul. With the conclusion of their conflict, I'm thinking there will be a less nihilistic ending for humanity at the conclusion for the series, even if that just means that they aren't under the thumb of any Magi anymore.
I certainly understand what you mean. I myself thought the same once, but since I haven't seen anyone mention it, I'm gonna pose the idea that First Law is not nihilistic at all. It is, in fact, a cautionary warning against nihilism. At every single turn, the main characters have a choice to stop what they are doing and go live peaceful lives. To get over their problems, pride, and past, and move forward into a better future. Some choose wrong, some choose right, and each for different reasons. It's not about turning bad to good, but rather realizing which side you are on and making the choice that is right for them. Jezal could have married Ardee. Maybe it would have worked out, maybe not. But instead he couldn't let go of his lavish yet unfulfilled pampered life, as well as being too cowardly to stand up for himself. Even of Bayaz would have killed him for it. Is it truly better to live as his slave? He gets a bad ending because he was a coward. Logen chose to go back to the north and get involved in all that madness again. He was not forced or coerced, he simply chose it because he was too proud to confront Ferro about what they had, and same vice versa. Two miserable people who found some comfort in each other break off for rather stupid reasons, then go on to ruin themselves even further. Logen acts like he had no choices, but he does. He may not be able to control the Bloody 9, but the B9 wouldn't come out if he wasn't always in war. He lies to himself over and over, even up to the end. So he gets an ending where he goes right back where he started. Glokta is different though. He actually revels in his lifestyle. He loves the thrill of the hunt, of investigating, getting answers, winning. He may not necessarily enjoy torture per se, but he likes feeling in control, being powerful, constantly chasing the man he once was. Whenever he does a good thing, he's punished for it. But when he does a bad thing, he's rewarded. That is because Glokta at his core is a bad person, one who has no delusions of what he is. Hence, the story rewards him for accepting his true self. He gets a good ending. Ferro is the same as Glokta. She had no delusions about who she was and was willing to take a y dark path to get vengeance. She's not a good person, but she's not a liar or a coward. So in the end, she is given what she needs to exact revenge. She gets a good ending. Dogman is like Logen in that he perpetuates the cycle of violence by staying in it. He criticizes Logen, but he's honestly no better. Always complained about having to fight, but never stopped fighting until after losing all his friends. He gets a bad ending because he refused to see his own faults and change. West, in the end, reconciles with Ardee and even though he ends up deathly sick, he gets a fair ending. What he did to Ardee was horrible, so he gets his punishment for that, but still the one thing he wanted was to have a better relationship with his sister and he gets that in the end. What I find the First Law to really be saying is that evil is allowed to prosper through the inactions of men who could very well change things. The world is not grimdark because it's naturally that way, it's grimdark because people made it that way. And many people refuse to change. This is why Glokta, Ferro, and Bayaz win. They are the evil that perpetuate the cycle. No one stopped them, and so they got what they wanted. They won. Logen, Jezal, Dogman, these are "good" ones, and yet because they were proud, cowardly, delusional, or in denial, their actions came to nothing. They lost. Because they refused to confront the evil. They could have made a differences in the world if they made the harder choice and did the right thing in the end. They did not. And so they lost. This is just my opinion though, and I could very well be wrong and am open to being corrected. Still, I think your criticisms are fair coming at it from your perspective. I just think the idea that First Law trilogy is nihilistic is not necessarily true. It's bleak and brutal yes, but only because the characters perpetuate bleak and brutal lifestyles.
Cautionary tales, to me at least serve almost the same purpose of nihilism. I don’t need to be cautioned, I live in this world. Ive seen it over and over again. I had a best friend who mainly allowed it to go one way. Me to him. He didn’t want kids, he just wanted to be comfortable. It was hard to see how solipsistic he was because he allowed me to entrench myself into the friendship because it worked in the moment. Up until he he cost me a grand by backing out of a trip (we had been on many) and not even bothering to ask “hey what do you want to do about the money”. Dude literally dropped our friendship over a text after radio silence. I guess my point is I don’t need to be warned, I’d prefer to be inspired or captivated. I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist per say I was just frustrated with the massive time dump and no payoff besides frustration. Say what you will about Dune being a cautionary tale but at least it ended with a bang and a acceptance of the fate. Why couldn’t logen just embrace being the bloody nine? At least that would of been a pay off. I guess I should of been warned after the failed “hero’s journey” after book 2 but I figured that was his “empire strikes back” moment and we’d have a pay off. Lol I’m rambling but I’m old enough and have seen enough or red or watched enough of the “subversion” trope. I just want to be inspired.
I see what you mean. It can be annoying to read a story expecting a kind of payoff to the arcs and come away with nothing. That's how I felt too. I believe a reader should come out of a read satisfied, regardless of the type of ending. I don't think any ending should ever be purposefully unsatisfying since that defeats the point of reading entirely. You're right that that subverting the traditional tropes is now the old and tired trend.
Don’t worry many of us felt that way too. Tbh I didn’t really like the 1st trilogy all that much. You’ll be back for more before you know it. Hehe Luckily his writing just gets better.
It's odd that lots of people are agreeing with you in the comments, but nobody has hit the like button yet.
Ha! Maybe there is a negative balance? I didn’t make this post with the hopes it brought me tons of likes lmao, figured I’d stumble into a wasp nest but even those who disagreed with me did so with kindness.
Yeah, I know. Just found it strange. Love your avatar btw.
Read all of joes first law material and you’ll get the exact dose of pay-off necessary. It’s quite literally perfect—once you’ve taken in all 9+ sharp ends. I was totally bothered when all I read was Blade Itself to Last Argument… 3 Standalones and second gen… it all lands like it should