|
I am making comparisons too close to apparent real world civilisations, so I may be wrong in how I compare things. An effective capital market would facilitate a modern democracy, though, and an empire bound to scriptures will probably be less adaptive.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Not a criticism of your point but there were more than 3 immortals: Bayaz, Yulwei, Zacharus, Cawneil - magi with explicit scenes in the books, more mentioned Feared, Caurib - Feared not really human but Caurib was a student of juvens, IIRC Tolomei Mamun Presumably Shenkt and Yoro Sulfur as well? Not sure here. Who knows who else Bayaz has trained over the years if they all are immortal, so that's a card Joe can play at any time. Are Khalul's eaters similarly immortal? None of them seem quite as psychopathic as Bayaz, though Zacharus was clearly meddling with the affairs of men to rebuild the old empire - future challenger/rival to Bayaz? Caurib wasn't up to anything good as far as I can tell, wish we there were more background on her story before she bit it. Khalul is an unknown, obviously there are severe moral issues with the way the empire is run but it's unclear to what degree he personally disregards the value of human lives. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
3 others, aside from the most prominent, I said. They all seem screwed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
I think being one of the few immortals would tend to do that to you. At some point your empathy and humanity is going to be snuffed out by time. Bayaz is terrible, but an economic system that isn't founded on slavery and cannibalism is clearly better for the majority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I think being one of the few immortals would tend to do that to you. At some point your empathy and humanity is going to be snuffed out by time. Bayaz is terrible, but an economic system that isn't founded on slavery and cannibalism is clearly better for the majority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I will never understand the obsession with "graying" Bayaz. Guy is Grade-A piece of poo poo and all signs point to him being as such long before he got to his current status.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:I will never understand the obsession with "graying" Bayaz. Ultimately if you are surrounded by assholes you want to pick the one that stinks the least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
It seems to me that people want him to be a good guy because he's basically the only character in the series who routinely gets what he wants and doesn't get his comeuppance for being a cock. In most stories, the guy who gets what he wants and doesn't get punished is the good guy, so people try to make him fit most stories. But this isn't most stories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
I actually had a major problem with the ending of The Heroes that kind of soured the entire book on me because of Bayaz. It felt like a bunch of things happened for ultimately no reason and Bayaz got his way anyhow. He is a terrible person and I hate seeing him succeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
He's not a good guy but he's also not evil in any way that matters in this world. It's almost like the author deliberately cast good and evil as largely pointless and subjective concepts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:He's not a good guy but he's also not evil in any way that matters in this world. It's almost like the author deliberately cast good and evil as largely pointless and subjective concepts. This discussion comes up now and again. Some people view him as being as close to pure evil as is depicted in the series (I guess ignoring more minor characters like Morveer), and will accuse others of being gulled by his affable exterior. The only thing I particularly like about him is that I find the Union to be a less reprehensible culture than what we know of what Khalul has set up. Advanced financial systems and weak religious influence are okay by me. Obviously, these systems very well may be just the tools Bayaz chooses to use, rather than any attempt by him to better humanity, but at least there may be positive externalities. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Joe Abercrombie deliberately built a world where good and evil have little meaning. He says so directly on the book's cover:quote:I want to read a fantasy with all the grit, and cruelty, and humour of real life. Where good and evil are a matter of where you stand, just like in the real world. Above Our Own fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's against moral labels-- since that's a thing we regularly do IRL-- so much as that it's against objectively correct moral labels. Calling Bayaz or anyone else evil is a certainly valid position, and easily supportable based on his actions. But I don't think it's possible to say that the story takes the position that he's evil. It doesn't really give an opinion either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Being a good person counts for exactly poo poo in Abercrombie's universe. Bayaz gets poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
I'm pretty ok with labeling a guy who unapologetically nuked his own populace to save his own skin "objectively evil." I don't care how up his own rear end Abercrombie or anyone else wants to get with his own cowardly, self-serving philosophy about it. It will always be an excuse for nihilists and cynics to let horrible things continue to happen while they don't raise a single finger or spare a single thought on how to make things better. God knows it forces its way into his bullshit "people can't change" character arcs enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:God knows it forces its way into his bullshit "people can't change" character arcs enough. I really don't get why people keep repeating this. It's not true at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
I think that about the nicest thing you can say about Bayaz is that he has clear motivations and reasons for the things he does. (Granted, at least one of these motivations and reasons appears to be gently caress YOU, DAD.) That doesn't make him "not evil", just "not a cartoon supervillain".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Xenix posted:I really don't get why people keep repeating this. It's not true at all. As someone who did complain about this in Abercrombie's works and has reconsidered a bit let me address what I think people see.I'm going to stick the majority in spoilers because it seems to be the trend in the thread but I'll be clear what books I'm addressing undser the black lines. In the original trilogy Bayaz changes in retrospect in that you realise that everything redeemable you've seen from him is simply a stratagem. He's 100% a sociopath devoted to getting his own way without any clear motivation for why he wants his own way. This is one of my problems with him in Abercrombie's world, he doesn't seem to have a motivation beyond being king of the castle with no reason given for why he thinks the castle is a particularly interesting thing outside of the 'King' is a winner. Jezzal changes the most in the orignal series, internally, but is utterly undermined by the changed he suffers in circumstance. I think of him as a tragic character in the sense he goes from being powerless in a conventional sense and desiring the trappings of power to gaining those trappings of power. However he also changes enough to realise he wants the power to use that power and has it very powerfully shoved in his face he can't do anything more than he could before. He changes in the sense that he grows to want real power (to change the world) and realises it's something he'll never have. To discuss later stuff encompassing Red Country Logen changes hugely in terms of his internal attitude. He makes a noticeable journey from the beginning in terms of taking responsibility for his own actions and the way he reacts to others. He seriously stops taking pride in his reputation and makes a real effort at rejecting at violence
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:In the original trilogy Bayaz changes in retrospect in that you realise that everything redeemable you've seen from him is simply a stratagem. He's 100% a sociopath devoted to getting his own way without any clear motivation for why he wants his own way. This is one of my problems with him in Abercrombie's world, he doesn't seem to have a motivation beyond being king of the castle with no reason given for why he thinks the castle is a particularly interesting thing outside of the 'King' is a winner. I don't quite agree. I think Bayaz actually has a very clear motivation: he wants to be right. He wants to win an argument with a dead man. His motivation is, broadly, gently caress YOU, DAD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I don't quite agree. I think Bayaz actually has a very clear motivation: he wants to be right. He wants to win an argument with a dead man. His motivation is, broadly, gently caress YOU, DAD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:He's not a good guy but he's also not evil in any way that matters in this world. It's almost like the author deliberately cast good and evil as largely pointless and subjective concepts. Bayaz isn't evil? Since when?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Maybe he's only halfway through the second book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Are you having trouble with the "author deliberately casts good and evil as pointless and subjective concepts" idea? I mean you don't have to agree with the author, but stop pretending like I made those posts without that context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Except he didn't do that, at least not as blatantly as you're suggesting. Abercrombie's definitely written characters who can't be neatly fit into a particular moral stance (and some, like Bayaz, who absolutely can but who present themselves as other than what they are), but I don't think he's chucked out the entire concept of morality the way you seem to think. The concept of absolute and universal morality, perhaps, but there's a huge gulf between moral relativism and "lol good and evil are for suckers".
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Except he didn't do that, at least not as blatantly as you're suggesting. People shouldn't be confused that there's a debate surrounding Bayaz being objectively evil in a series that works so hard to paint morality as a subjective idea, is my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Abercrombie's point was that good and evil don't give karmic rewards and are complex in themselves, not that such moral judgements don't exist at all. The First Law is very much a response to heroic fantasy where the good side triumphs; Abercrombie shows both that you can't easily pick a 'good' side and that good people might end up with a raw deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
I pick up a little bit of an order versus chaos vibe from TFL with these amoral and ruthless wizards enforcing civilization at any cost. Compared the the reality-shattering demons on the other side, Bayaz is a loving saint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
The wizards are the thing most likely to, and maybe even the only thing capable of, allowing those reality shattering demons to cross over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Except he didn't do that, at least not as blatantly as you're suggesting. The first time we see Bayaz he presents himself exactly as he is: a butcher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Just finished the first book, I enjoyed it and now I'm buying the rest of the trilogy. Still, I really hope Jezal and Ardee become less annoying in the following books because I really wanted both of them to die in a fire in most of Jezal's chapters (Glokta and Logen are cool, though)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
radlum posted:Just finished the first book, I enjoyed it and now I'm buying the rest of the trilogy. Still, I really hope Jezal and Ardee become less annoying in the following books because I really wanted both of them to die in a fire in most of Jezal's chapters (Glokta and Logen are cool, though) You may want to stay out of the thread until you've at least finished the trilogy as the spoilers are starting to come pretty fast and loose. Also as far as Bayaz is concerned he isn't good or evil in the traditional sense. Rather he is completely amoral, which could potentially be benevolent under some circumstances, but in the context of the story manifests as evil. This is my sense of what Abercrombie means when he talks about good and evil being relative; not that people cant be one or the other, but rather that other people's perception of those same people can change depending on the circumstances. In reality, you never really know whats going on inside of someone's head or why they do something, you can only perceive the physical consequences and how that affects the lives of others Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:You may want to stay out of the thread until you've at least finished the trilogy as the spoilers are starting to come pretty fast and loose. I don't know I think calling him amoral would be generous. He lies to and uses his closest companions. He seems to care about nothing besides his own survival and his survival seems to benefit nobody but himself. As the books play out we learn that 90 percent of the strife in the world is because of poo poo he did to his teacher and those who loved him. He makes Pol Pot look amoral in comparison. If you couldn't describe Bayaz as evil, then evil really loses all meaning. I don't think Bayaz is meant to be amoral, I think he is meant to seem like a great guy with a friendly demeanor in the first book and then Abercrombie spends the next 4000 pages crushing that assumption. The Walking Dad fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Bayaz is pretty evil from a human perspective. From his own perspective as a demigod who can physically discorporate people with his mind, I think his actions are rational. He's also generally polite and prefers solving things diplomatically before using violence to accomplish his goals. He is just completely ruthless and doesn't value human life very much. Compare that to Shenkt, who is portrayed as a "good" character that solves every problem by brutally murdering everyone in the room even if a lesser show of force would've done the trick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
We can only hope we will get all the answers we need when B9 throws down with Shenkt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Bayaz is pretty evil from a human perspective. From his own perspective as a demigod who can physically discorporate people with his mind, I think his actions are rational. He's also generally polite and prefers solving things diplomatically before using violence to accomplish his goals. He is just completely ruthless and doesn't value human life very much. He is not these things though, he is not very polite or diplomatic, and even as a demigod he is an evil rear end in a top hat, because his goal was to be the number one demigod and he was ruthless and underhanded in achieving that goal. I really don't get greying Byaz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
FordPRefectLL posted:We can only hope we will get all the answers we need when B9 throws down with Shenkt. Already seen Logen versus an Eater. The B9 is fairly superhuman but he's not up to cannibal wizard levels, yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Already seen Logen versus an Eater. The B9 is fairly superhuman but he's not up to cannibal wizard levels, yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Blind Melon posted:He is not these things though, he is not very polite or diplomatic, and even as a demigod he is an evil rear end in a top hat, because his goal was to be the number one demigod and he was ruthless and underhanded in achieving that goal. I really don't get greying Byaz. The people who were opposed to Bayaz at least at the start consisted of a deranged megalomaniac (Sult) and the literal head of a cannibal cult running the Empire Of Torturvania (Khalul). Bayaz was being an rear end in a top hat to assholes, which makes him our sort of rear end in a top hat. Whereas his allies at the start were a group of largely sympathetic, if flawed, people (and the vast majority of our viewpoint characters). By the time he's revealed as Fantasy Lex Luthor With Daddy Issues, we've spent a lot of time at least kind of on his side. Some conflicted feelings are pretty understandable, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Blind Melon posted:I really don't get greying Byaz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is probably bad, but I'm blanking on when this happened. Its got to be during TFL, probably during the last book, but I don't remember it at all. In the palace he ran into an eater (the more urbane/polite variety, as I recall) and got his arse kicked. He was saved by something, I can't remember what. I don't think he went into the Bloody Nine fugue, though, so maybe the result would be different then. Edit: after some research the Eater in question was Khalul's principal apprentice, if that changes anything. I tend to think he'd lose anyway. Shenkt entered bullet time when he fought, if he's indicative of a slightly lower level eater (although he must be somewhat strong since Yoru Sulfur seemed to fear him). Neurosis fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:24
|
|