|
So apparently like many other readers I thought it was not the strongest book Joe Abercrombie's written, by a good stretch, while still greatly enjoying it. First off, there were times when I was a bit jaded with the overall 'everyone's a total piece of poo poo' ethos, particularly with how it related to the flow of politics and great events: I thought the rush of events to the total collapse of the Union monarchy was overdone and oversimplified, and the complete mess left by proto-republican rule was a silly caricature. Some people have already noted how quickly the military forces defending the crown collapsed, like not in a few days or weeks (as has sometimes been the case) but apparently in about one morning. I think the details of that collapse, of the rump forces under Forest fighting a civil war, and of the behaviour of the other Union provinces during this violent interregnum were all left barely sketched out, and I found that disappointing. Then the way all the revolutionaries were simpletons, deranged, ineffective or homicidal lunatics was beyond my suspension of disbelief. A lot of the beats were French revolution, yes, or Russian revolution, and I'm not a scholar of either of those periods, but I did recognise some elements as being overdrawn. Like yes, there are shortages, fresh inequalities, widespread violence and the breakdown of law and order in revolutions, alongside political reprisals. But the idea that everyone involved was an utter incompetent and none of the levers of state were efficiently taken over (bar Pike's new Inquisition, which is ultimately seen to be part of Glokta's grand design) . . . that's just silly. E.g. the French revolutionaries did have terrible problems trying to supplant the ancien regime officer corps and form a standing army - but when they did, because their civil and military projects included some very dedicated, capable people, they accomplished surprising things, to the surprise of the neighbouring monarchies! Maybe it's part of Abercrombie's natural cynicism where most everyone is a fool, systems are rotten and everything gets worse or stays the same. But it's ridiculous to portray a revolution which jumps straight from wasting time drawing up a constitution (actually a pretty important thing to do) to spending every second of its time executing real and imagined enemies, with little-to-no screen time given to them actually reforming the state. I also thought his themes were less than compelling when it came to the military stuff: I know that plot movements in this series tend to be propelled by a cascade of betrayals and cunning ruses, each more cunning that the last. But it stretched credulity with the Northern military campaign. The Rikke weakness fake-out was telegraphed to the reader miles off, and it just doesn't make any sense! First off, feigning weakness is a terrible idea in a civil war when you're keeping the secret from the general population and your own supporters. Anyone actually trying that would find all their support genuinely would melt away, leaving them high and dry. It was also a bit insulting (I know it's just a casual fantasy read, not John le Carre) that Calder, this supposed wily fox, had precisely 2 spies and no scouts. How was he blind to the forces moving away and then back, he relied entirely for information only on one informant? (separate issue, as some have pointed out, of whether Bayaz should/could have helped with any of this, having already determined Calder was his horse to back) On a more down-in-the-weed tactical sense, how did 3 small armies close in on another, literally so close they could charge directly into them, while staying out of sight? That's beyond any normal ability at stealth or misdirection. The series has always been loose about military realism (fantasy early-medieval northern europeans taking on early-modern armies that sometimes have, and sometimes don't have, mass-manufactured plate armour) but this is ridiculous. I did think some of the set pieces were great and the prose was better than any of his early stuff. I'm just getting a bit sick of all arseholery and how every big win/loss is the result of some bit of treachery. I think the author under-portrays the effects of simple competence (incompetence is portrayed as ubiquitous and lovingly described) and circumstance in how wars and politics produce results. There was some mention of public opinion, but mostly in how it could be manipulated by Savine.
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Crespolini posted:Oh, he had scouts. There a POV where one of Rikke's guys goes "Gee wiz, almost hard to believe we managed to gank of all Calders scouts and none of them got away." And it's like yes, it is. Even more so how that didn't tip Calder off to something being extremely wrong. I know, right? Like one scout going missing can be dismissed as an accident, all your scouts going missing is a clarion call that your enemy is out in force and you need to concentrate immediately. As many people have said, it's just too one-sided a business to make the reader feel much relief/triumph at Rikke's success. Ccs posted:I've found reading KJ Parker to be a less immediately enjoyable experience but he's similar to Abercrombie except that he provides both sides of a conflict a measure of dignity. Usually the reasons one side collapses over the other is due to things no one could have seen coming, or linked to a very specific tragic flaw, and not just "total incompetence." Competence is so rare in an Abercrombie book its like a superpower. Thanks for the recommendation! I actually had just picked up this "Sixteen ways to defend a walled city" for £1 when I bought the Madness of Crowds ebook, as I'd heard a similar recommendation here. Eager to try it. I remember reading his 'Fencer' trilogy years ago and it was better than most fantasy books. I think it's a pseudonym for Tom Holt as well? That surprised me as he's a very humorous author. Genghis Cohen fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:
I know that 'tactical realism' isn't the point, as long as the setting tells interesting stories, but the modernity/technology actually sort of irked me in the setting. They were probably in the early modern period at the start of the first trilogy, and/or in Best Served Cold, and then as you say they're almost full into the industrial revolution within a generation. I know it's not that egregious and I should be able to suspend my disbelief, but it's simplifying so many incremental advances - not just engineering but metallurgy, commercialism etc. I roll my eyes slightly when some bloke wanders up to our protagonist at a party and starts burbling about his incredible new machine, and we are all supposed to, as laymen with no technical backgrounds, to recognise 'aha, he's come up with the steam engine' and applaud that they've got a train later in the book. Where in fact that technology went through so many stages before it was anything more than a curiosity, it wasn't just cut from whole cloth by one genius in a year or two. This is especially noticeable in the military bits like the Heroes. One side is an early medieval society with its warrior class and peasants, which we sort of envision as Danes/Anglo-Saxons. Chaps with shields and swords/axes and maybe mail shirts. The other is a modern (Napoleonic-ish?) army with a general staff, representing the military effort of a developed state. (and they've got a bizarre mish-mash of late medieval technology, like pikemen, crossbowmen and full plate harness, with Napoleonic tropes like colourful uniforms, no/irrelevant armour and officers with useless ornamental swords). The Union should absolutely stomp all over the Northmen. Sidenote, someone will probably point out some examples like the British Empire vs Afghanistan (in the 19th century, not more recently) and that the Afghans often came off best. Yes, but that was largely because Afghanistan was one of many colonial theatres and the British never sent more than a fraction of their force there. The Union/North war is one of the biggest, if not the main, effort for the Union. The Northmen don't use much in the way of guerilla tactics, they're slogging it out in pitched battle. They should be massively outnumbered, out-trained, out-supplied. If anything, the Northmen's successes seemed to rest on this barbarism vs civilization trope that they (at least their Named Men) were enthusiastic about close combat and the Union were from a more modern tradition where everyone knows fighting hand-to-hand sucks balls. But that trope has no reason to exist in a world without gunpowder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Warden posted:I know it's been a month, but I felt I could maybe discuss this a bit: You may well be right, and I am just hung up on the lack of detailed explanation of the anachronisms and how they played out. That said, I do think there is an over-reliance on the Union not being 'warriors' compared to the Northmen (who I accept are mostly the veterans of their army).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
Collateral posted:Haven't read the last one, yet. Is there a yound Napoleon character? God, I remember those from when I was a kid. I remember glancing through another David Gemmell book when I was an adult once and it didn't hold up so well though. I also vividly remember being given a historical novel about the late Roman Republic by a chap called Conn Iggulden, on the basis that the giver knew I love history, and I think the blurb proclaimed the author was a bona fide history professor? It was complete tripe and the writing and characters reminded me overwhelmingly of Gemmell's stuff. That's my pointless story, thank you for attending this talk.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 19:03
|
|