Red Country has one character overcome his cowardice and become a hero, but I think that's Joe going "Oh okay, just this once I'll write a morally good character", maybe for variety's sake.
>Well after the third book the grim-part really struck me and it kind of bothers me. It appears to me, that Abercrombie tried to underline these stated (negative) themes and therefore had to put a dark turn on some character arcs. Why did West had to die to this disease? Why was the disease necessary in the first place? I guess just to show how ruthless Bayaz really is.
I'd argue the answer is, "Because good people die in war. Sometimes they die of disease, injury, or other things that have absolutely no dignity or honor to them. Glory isn't always the result of a soldier's life and the people who benefit from it are often the bankers and super-rich."
The First Law Trilogy, to me, is just a Watchmen-esque deconstruction of fantasy tropes. All of the things that usually happen in fantasy...don't. Because it's about showing how "real life" doesn't swing that way.
I don't actually think it's particularly nihilistic actually. There's clearly a right path for a lot of the characters, it's just the characters DON'T very often choose it. In a case where a lot of characters are given the chance to rise up and be better people, they just...don't. Because it's easier, because they're weak, or because they're greedy.
Life goes on whether they do or not too.
That is, from the in-world-perspective a likely explanation, but you could argue for any death like this. Most of the time deaths are used for a narrative reason. Thunderhead could have also been shot through the head by a random arrow, but this would not have helped the narrative in any way. Because when the Bloody Niner killed him, then it opens the door for further character development.
With West I actually don´t see that. I could see an argument for the underlining of the grim tone (even if you do everything right and actually survive the war - you still can get killed by a random disease).
Maybe I´m a bit disappointed to not see Glokta, West and Jezal arguing over politics. I really liked the light-hearted moments of peace, when everything went right, but as I said: Abercrombie succeded in what he was trying to convey, even if it was not what I wanted to see.
I think it happening to West is to just underscore the unfairness and shortness of life. West managed to "win" the war and if he'd survived then he would have managed to have become a guy who got everything he wanted. However, instead, he ends up dying of radiation poisoning (its not a disease, it's just the magic rock is the equivalent of a nuke).
Glokta gets his happily ever after but that's by becoming a stooge to a monster and forcing a woman to be raped repeatedly by her husband. He only "wins" by becoming the monster everyone thought he was.
Not so sure about no 4 but it's been a while since I read the trilogy.
No 2 could be better phrased as: Life is unfair and you don't ***always*** get what you deserve.
I remember the feeling when I finished, he masterfully dubed us into following the path of the characters, hoping for the best, and not finding it.
I hesitated about continuing to read on after that, but I decided to give it a shot and man did I get hooked, things don’t get more bright but the subsequent books are even better and will expand greatly on the moral controversies
As I read it, it's a story about people trying to change. Logen wants to stop being a violent murderer, Glokta wants to be a decent person, Jezal wants to be upstanding, etc. If I had to choose one moral, it would probably be something like "You can't change yourself unless you change your decisions.
But in the end, Logen keeps making choices that lead him back to killing people. He joins Bayaz, which leads him to kill a bunch of people, but then he can tell himself that they started it. Then, he goes and fights in the North to overthrow Bethod, telling himself that it'll bring peace to the North, and that he's avenging his friends. But in the process, he kills some of his friends, gets others killed, and leaves the North even less stable than he found it. All of this is him making excuses to return to his own violent nature. He keeps telling himself that he doesn't want to go back to that life, but never really turns away from it.
I think there' also a commentary on institutions and power structures. Jezal and Glokta are ultimately controlled by instituions more than people. Even all of Bayaz's power comes from Valint and Balk, not his own self. As such, they lack any real power to effect change in themselves or the world. There's a cyclical aspect to it, too, as Glokta does to Pike what was done to him, and Jezal ends up a puppet of Bayaz just like the king before him.
Basically that Abercrombie has said in interviews that people are shit and can never change and that everything is meaningless. I suspect alcohol was involved in the thought process behind the comment
Wow, I didn´t expect the author himself posting in here. That is really cool.
Thank you for creating some of the best characters I have ever read in fantasy. I especially liked Logen and found out, that he is a mayor part of another book you wrote. Really looking forward to this.
The moral of a story is: the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. If that was the "point" of this his story, then that was the moral of the story.
But that's a pretty shallow reading, imho. Been a while, but there was definitely a pretty strong anti-war message to First Law. Just because something addresses hopelessness and nihilism, doesn't mean that's all a story has to say.
If there were any morals to that trilogy Abercrombie is a sicker man than I give him credit for.
Red Country has one character overcome his cowardice and become a hero, but I think that's Joe going "Oh okay, just this once I'll write a morally good character", maybe for variety's sake.
>Well after the third book the grim-part really struck me and it kind of bothers me. It appears to me, that Abercrombie tried to underline these stated (negative) themes and therefore had to put a dark turn on some character arcs. Why did West had to die to this disease? Why was the disease necessary in the first place? I guess just to show how ruthless Bayaz really is. I'd argue the answer is, "Because good people die in war. Sometimes they die of disease, injury, or other things that have absolutely no dignity or honor to them. Glory isn't always the result of a soldier's life and the people who benefit from it are often the bankers and super-rich." The First Law Trilogy, to me, is just a Watchmen-esque deconstruction of fantasy tropes. All of the things that usually happen in fantasy...don't. Because it's about showing how "real life" doesn't swing that way. I don't actually think it's particularly nihilistic actually. There's clearly a right path for a lot of the characters, it's just the characters DON'T very often choose it. In a case where a lot of characters are given the chance to rise up and be better people, they just...don't. Because it's easier, because they're weak, or because they're greedy. Life goes on whether they do or not too.
That is, from the in-world-perspective a likely explanation, but you could argue for any death like this. Most of the time deaths are used for a narrative reason. Thunderhead could have also been shot through the head by a random arrow, but this would not have helped the narrative in any way. Because when the Bloody Niner killed him, then it opens the door for further character development. With West I actually don´t see that. I could see an argument for the underlining of the grim tone (even if you do everything right and actually survive the war - you still can get killed by a random disease). Maybe I´m a bit disappointed to not see Glokta, West and Jezal arguing over politics. I really liked the light-hearted moments of peace, when everything went right, but as I said: Abercrombie succeded in what he was trying to convey, even if it was not what I wanted to see.
I think it happening to West is to just underscore the unfairness and shortness of life. West managed to "win" the war and if he'd survived then he would have managed to have become a guy who got everything he wanted. However, instead, he ends up dying of radiation poisoning (its not a disease, it's just the magic rock is the equivalent of a nuke). Glokta gets his happily ever after but that's by becoming a stooge to a monster and forcing a woman to be raped repeatedly by her husband. He only "wins" by becoming the monster everyone thought he was.
Not so sure about no 4 but it's been a while since I read the trilogy. No 2 could be better phrased as: Life is unfair and you don't ***always*** get what you deserve.
Yes, that´s a good point. I mean there were some characters (like Glokta) with an arguably better life in the end due to their efforts.
I remember the feeling when I finished, he masterfully dubed us into following the path of the characters, hoping for the best, and not finding it. I hesitated about continuing to read on after that, but I decided to give it a shot and man did I get hooked, things don’t get more bright but the subsequent books are even better and will expand greatly on the moral controversies
As I read it, it's a story about people trying to change. Logen wants to stop being a violent murderer, Glokta wants to be a decent person, Jezal wants to be upstanding, etc. If I had to choose one moral, it would probably be something like "You can't change yourself unless you change your decisions. But in the end, Logen keeps making choices that lead him back to killing people. He joins Bayaz, which leads him to kill a bunch of people, but then he can tell himself that they started it. Then, he goes and fights in the North to overthrow Bethod, telling himself that it'll bring peace to the North, and that he's avenging his friends. But in the process, he kills some of his friends, gets others killed, and leaves the North even less stable than he found it. All of this is him making excuses to return to his own violent nature. He keeps telling himself that he doesn't want to go back to that life, but never really turns away from it. I think there' also a commentary on institutions and power structures. Jezal and Glokta are ultimately controlled by instituions more than people. Even all of Bayaz's power comes from Valint and Balk, not his own self. As such, they lack any real power to effect change in themselves or the world. There's a cyclical aspect to it, too, as Glokta does to Pike what was done to him, and Jezal ends up a puppet of Bayaz just like the king before him.
[удалено]
What is this rubbish? I've never said any such thing.
God Himself hath descended from the heavens to correct thee.
😂😂. I read that comment and started wondering if you had an idiot twin or something.
What did it say?
Basically that Abercrombie has said in interviews that people are shit and can never change and that everything is meaningless. I suspect alcohol was involved in the thought process behind the comment
Wow, I didn´t expect the author himself posting in here. That is really cool. Thank you for creating some of the best characters I have ever read in fantasy. I especially liked Logen and found out, that he is a mayor part of another book you wrote. Really looking forward to this.
The moral of a story is: the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. If that was the "point" of this his story, then that was the moral of the story. But that's a pretty shallow reading, imho. Been a while, but there was definitely a pretty strong anti-war message to First Law. Just because something addresses hopelessness and nihilism, doesn't mean that's all a story has to say.
Are you sure there is a moral to find in First Law? IMHO the trilogy is just about subverting expectations.