|
One thing I didn't pick up from the books. Why are the Magi so long-lived?
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Khatib posted:Which I see as points in Bayaz's favor of not being as evil as everyone here seems to think him to be. Considering nearly everything Bayaz said in the house of the Maker turned out to be false (Tolomei, Juvens, ect.), can we really trust his statement on the Shanka as well? I think Bayaz was the best character to be honest; such a great twist on the cliche Gandalf figure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
I can't think of much that was new in this novel; even the cool sword that mad guy had was obviously one of Kanedias'. There was nothing like Fenris or Aulculus, and not much of the backstory was expanded on. It's also getting tiring that Bayaz always gets exactly what he wants.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
Shameless posted:Aside from Cracknut Whirrun, I really wish he hadn't gone back to the mud, the mad bastard. I think that death struck completely the wrong tone- I still don't understand why he wanted the sword (obviously one of the Maker's) to be buried. It seemed so completely out of character.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Yadoppsi posted:Also where are you getting the idea that the Father-of-Swords is one of the Maker's blades? A very big, impossibly sharp sword made of dull grey metal with a silver letter stamped at the hilt. Am I talking about Logen's blade or Whirrun's? The description fits both.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Rereading this I've thought of a few things (sorry about spoiling everything- it's just in case): Number one: Bayaz coming in at the end and controlling essentially renders all the things Calder did completely pointless; instead of serving Black Dow he's serving Bayaz. Calder is now in exactly the same position as Glokta and essentially had the same plot (casting off an old master only to get an even worse one, the same person for both)- this may be intended but is treading on old ground and for me just seems boring. Also the writing for Bayaz just rubbed me the wrong way; I lost count of the number of times he did things without ceremony or undignifiably, and is described in the prose as talking to people as though they were dogs. Yes we get it Bayaz is bad and rude and totally not the stereotypical wizard but there's no need to go to these lengths, especially when we've already had a whole trilogy focused on him. Number two: There was nothing new in this book. I'm not counting cannons and sandwiches; we're familiar with those. One of my favourite things about the First Law Trilogy was the backstory and the occasional glimpses of the early madness; Aulculus, Fenris the Feared (especially), the Divider, ect. There was nothing like that; we have some very brief glimpses of very odd and rather pointless magic in Ishri, and the Father of Swords was obviously one of Kanedias'. The rest of the book may be strong enough to carry it, but it wouldn't hurt to include a few references to some fantastical elements. Especially considering what Abercrombie has dreamt up in the past. Number three: It was very refreshing to read fight scenes from the point of view of someone who isn't constantly terrified. Yes there was only one of those characters but it was a step in the right direction, as I was starting to get bored reading about people swallowing sour spit and fighting clumsily. It was nice to read fights from a brilliant soldier's point of view (who wasn't a mad demonic spirit). Number four: I'm getting tired of all the weariness. I understand that this is supposed to be dark fantasy, but to my mind dark does not mean dreary. That is all I felt from the campfire scenes (and basically every scene involving Craw); a bunch of people droning on and on about how pointless everything is. It just felt boring. This is one of the main reasons I didn't feel anything when Whirrun's death rolled around; to be honest his dialog with Craw felt the same as all the other dialog scenes with Craw. I hadn't got to know anything about Whirrun except that he appeared mad, and that he's a really good fighter. The book didn't give me enough reasons to care that he died. Also in a book that prides itself on its realistic battle scenes I'm skeptical that Craw could've had a long chat with a man suck through with a spear, while in the middle of a melee. Number five: This is a minor point but what exactly do you need to do to become a Named Man? The details seem vague but if all you need to do is kill four guys then i'd expect half Dow's army is a named man by the end of the battle. When other people talk about Named Men they talk of hardened veterans, not people who've committed one act of bravery. The whole thing seems to change to suit the narration at the time. Number six: Having said all of this I will admit I loved the chapter with the different points of view as each person gets killed, and aside from anything else Abercrombie writes fight scenes better than anyone I know. Also Scale Ironhand may be the greatest name I have ever heard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
keiran_helcyan posted:Huh, and here I absolutely loved the mythological back-story and thought it tied well into the present day story. A lot of the back-story seemed to exist to set up the fact that Bayaz was following the same destructive path as Glustrod with the seed. Also it serves in the end to establish that Bayaz has always been a power-hungry rear end in a top hat whose achievements do little more than borrow from the much greater works of Juvens and Kanedias. Frankly that was my favourite part with Logen (excluding Bloody Nine awesomeness), when he call Bayaz out on his 'achievement': "The results seem pretty much the same, except you wrought a touch less careless slaughter, and ruined a smaller part of a smaller city in a smaller, meaner time.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Jezal was always a bitch though. He thought he was making some progress for awhile, but was it really a surprise that when push came to shove he reverted back into being a bitch? Considering numerous characters say that he's a brilliant card player I was confused as to why he was such an idiot. Card players are generally good at reading people and I was expecting him to pull off some masterstroke against Bayaz. I guess he didn't because it would've been too uplifting. Looking above I think someone touched on a very good point; the main cast were very well written but the supporting cast were paper-thin and the Northmen and Union armies were just caricatures. On one side you have a battle hardened people hardened by years of hard fighting, and on the other side you have an army that contains every ineffectual stereotype, all of them in command. Poulder and Kroy seemed to serve no purpose other than to show everybody how small-minded the Union is. There was one point where I realised this in LAoK: Logen is describing the Gurkish to the Northmen and says "Hard men by all counts". For god's sake is there any group of people other than the Union who aren't hard fighters? Also I agree that the fight underneath Aulculus was very jarring, to be honest it read like a mindless computer game: Kill numerous small enemies Kill bigger more dangerous enemies (with cool combos like throwing them into lava) Kill boss creature (never referenced before or after) Plucky Brit fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:I also agree that Longfoot and Ferro are pretty weak characters, and I agree that the Union Army is made up of shorthand caricatures in the First Law trilogy. I didn't mind that, though - it seemed pretty obvious that caricature was what Abercrombie was going for in that case. The Heroes provides a lot of depth to those very same characters, since they're serving a completely different role in the story now. The Heroes provides some depth to Kroy, while also introducing three new incompetent generals. The over-eager and incompetent one, the cavalier one who dies while doing something reckless, and the one who thinks he's methodical but causes blunder after blunder. Sound familiar? At any rate I have the same criticism of the northmen; I think one of the reviews says "A squadron of Terry Blackstool's deadliest cliches sprang their trap." That's pretty much my stance about the Northmen, and no I don't think that one throwaway line about how Dow used to be a potter counts as character development. I don't really think it's possible to develop so many characters over one book, but if so I don't think he should've introduced so many. \/\/\/\/ I don't want to get into a massive argument, so I'll just state my opinion. Jalenhorm: Advances far too fast, is caught off guard, and has a third (or more) of his division destroyed. The rest of the division is saved by Gorst's (badass) charge. He also takes the children thanks to Gorst. The guy on the left: Spends a morning failing to break through on the bridge (only works when Gorst arrives), sends people onto a fast stream and most drown. Is caught completely unprepared by Calder's nighttime attack, then sends all his cavalry to their deaths because he didn't get the ground checked. The guy on the right: Keeps nobody in reserve (ignoring Finree, understandably) which means he gets killed. I can't think of any good move or strategy done by any of them. If you can then I'll gladly concede the point. Plucky Brit fucked around with this message at 12:16 on May 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
Megaflare posted:Just finished Heroes. I really like that Abercrombie is unpredictable enough of a writer that I couldn't say for certain who would win in the duel between Calder and Dow at the end. Reading most writers, I could just assume that Calder would get some once in a lifetime chance and win against all odds or something. It was fairly obvious for me that he was going to win, considering Abercrombie doesn't seem to like killing off PoV characters; West (presumably) and Logen (possibly) die but I can't think of anyone else. There were several times when it looks like everything is lost for a character, then they miraculously survive (especially Glokta). Even if they all end up worse than where they started, they all seem to live. Also come on he did get a once in a lifetime chance and win against all odds. He would've been murdered horrifically if Dow didn't toss his sword to Shivers specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Oatgan posted:Before Then Are Hanged Also Glokta (I think it's him) is walking in what appears to be a cyberpunk gothic city. Edit: Also I thought it's specifically mentioned that inquisitors wear white. Plucky Brit fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 08:50
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:The Heroes is new thematic ground and the best thing Abercrombie has yet written. Is it really new thematic ground though? The battles read like a heavily truncated retread of the previous North vs. Union campaign, and the political side has been done before. Number one: Glokta and Calder have the same plot. Wily and cunning, terrible at fighting but who survive with help from a mysterious benefactor and a healthy dose of luck. At the end of the book/trilogy they cast off their old ruthless masters for an even more ruthless one, who turns out to be the mysterious benefactor (and the same person for both). They both then end up as the power behind the throne due to the king being an idiot. Number two: The Union command is comprised of a competent marshall trying to keep everything together, then three generals of varying levels of incompetence. It ends up with one dying early on in the campaign/battle due to recklessness, one dying due to leading a charge, and the last one ending up as the marshall. Number three: The Northern army is comprised of battle hardened warriors, about 10,000 strong, and the Union army is roughly three times that but not battle hardened. Due to cunning tactics the Northerners manage to reduce the Union army with minimum casualties early on in the campaign/battle. Number four: At the end of the book/trilogy Bayaz shows up and reveals that everything that happened was due to him. He then uses this reveal to force Calder/Glokta into working for him. I'm not saying that the entire book is the same, but it's impossible to ignore the similarities. Abercrombie has also done the whole futility of war thing before, with the previous North vs. Union conflict and the battle at Adua. I think that the reason why The Heroes rubs me the wrong way is that Abercrombie wants to have his cake and eat it; he wants to create books that talk about the horror and futility of war, while also having super-cool fight scenes like the fight between Gorst and Whirrun, the Bloody Nine's fights, or Threetrees vs. The Feared. The running commentary that Gorst gives about how ridiculous and unrealistic some parts are (Golden's armour, Scale's charge, Whirrun's sword, ect.) stand at pretty sharp contrast to the fight scenes and the world that they're set in. I'll just summarise; I don't think that this is a bad book by any means. The writing is good, there's no purple prose, the fight scenes are cool. But if you want to write a book on the fultility of war I don't see why you wouldn't use one of the many wars actually fought throughout history- they have a more personal touch because people know that these wars actually happened. I don't think a book with wizards, magic and demonic spirits is the best vehicle to convey the pointlessness of war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
The theme debate boils down to opinions; I don't think that a fantasy novel which includes magic, wizards, and indestructible swords has the required realism to effectively convey the horrors of war, particularly when none of the main PoV characters die or are even permanently injured. You clearly don't agree with me, and for you this book could convey this message effectively. Let's just agree to disagree. With regards to fight scenes: To be clear I'm not talking about the emotions involved in the fight scenes, as with the exception of Gorst everybody is terrified (even Logen, when he isn't the Bloody Nine). I'm talking about the fight scenes themselves. In The Heroes we have two brilliant fighters on opposite sides of the battle and hey presto they end up fighting near the end, in a melee which conveniently opens out so that they can fight properly. Nothing is changed by the outcome of that fight, and it feels like a bog-standard fantasy fight; happening because it's cool rather than serving any point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
fermun posted:I took it as it not serving any point for the plot was the entire point of the scene, hammering in the pointlessness of it all by having these two legendary fighters face off and absolutely nothing being solved by it. The book's themes condensed down to one scene. That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that. If that's the case, what was the point of every other fight scene with Gorst? Especially his duel with Scale which even Gorst recognises as a cliche. All of those fights did serve a point; he saved Jalenhorm's division, took the bridge, and took the children. Is the point there that the fighting did have a point or that it didn't? Edit: I can see I'm reaching quite a lot now to find other faults in the book, which means I'm trying not to like it. I'm not too sure why, so I'll stop debating now. Sorry for making GBS threads up the thread. Plucky Brit fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I think the point isn't that the growth is "useless," but rather the author is demonstrating that one-dimensional paragons of good or evil don't really exist. Jezal ends up being a pretty vitreous guy but he's not an unfailing white knight. I like characters like these because they strike me as more realistic and complex. Your point about Bayaz is undercut slightly by the fact that he set off a magical equivalent of a nuclear bomb in a crowded city, killing thousands. I think the point is that Jezal has character development, he genuinely wants to do good and Abercrombie nurtures the idea that he could be a genuinely good king. Then he pisses all over that with Bayaz scaring him. It always seemed weird to me given that Jezal hadn't backed down from previous fights, but somehow Bayaz making his stomach hurt broke every resolve he had. Also I've said before that it Jezal is said to be a great card player, yet is somehow completely unable to read people. It feels like a disconnect in characterisation. In the end I understand that Abercrombie wants to fight back against the whole idea of stupidly optimistic fantasy. But I feel that he's gone too far the other way; having nobody end up in a better position at the end of a novel is just as unrealistic as having everybody end up in a better position. The problem is I don't think that there's any balance to the books. It's all bad, everybody has bad stuff happen to them, nothing ends up better than at the start. Except Bayaz. Still, it's hard to like it when someone objectively evil keeps on winning. As mentioned before, I'll read the other books hoping that he falls, but knowing Abercrombie it'll probably end up with somebody even worse taking over. Also for all the talk about Abercrombie bucking trends, he's as reluctant as any author to kill off his major PoV characters. I wrote earlier in this thread that the only two were Logen (possibly) and West (probaby) but the latest book shows I was wrong on the first one.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Rurik posted:That's what you get for naming the religious leader of the The mention of S(t)yria took me right out of the first book.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 16:00
|
|