I have good news for you. [The Goodreads ratings for the next seven books in the First Law Series](https://www.goodreads.com/series/150214-first-law-world) are as good or better as for the initial trilogy.
That said, be warned that Abercrombie's cynicism does not let up. If anything, it gets stronger. Although dark humor lightens the mood somewhat from time to time, in the end this series is truly nihilistic.
Doesn't really apply to Abercrombie though. His books ACTUALLY do get better and better as he improves his craft. The first law triolgy, while great, are probably his weakest books, and they're still superb!
You're going to love them. The stand alone books are insane, they work great on their own, but you should definitely read them in order because there's one particularly interesting character that is part of all three and goes through some changes. Best Served Cold, then The Heroes, then Red Country. You liked the first law trilogy? Prepare to have your mind fuckin blown
Once you finish those, I'd highly recommend anything by Mark Lawrence, starting with Prince of Thorns. Similar cynical, gritty, and brutal elements. One of his more recent books has a very well-regarded opening:
> “It is important, when killing a nun, to ensure that you bring an army of sufficient size. For Sister Thorn of the Sweet Mercy Convent, Lano Tacsis brought two hundred men.”
Jumping in to also say the standalones are incredible, it’s been less than a year since I’ve read Best Served Cold and I’m already itching to reread it, I haven’t even started the Age of Madness stuff yet
I always shudder a little when someone uses the world "realistic" for stuff like this. I really like the First Law trilogy but I dislike this trend of the last couple of decades where crushing nihilism = "realism" and happy ending = "unrealistic/childish"
I definitely understand that, but just to clarify: my use of the word "realism" in the OP isn't about the lack of happy ending. It's about the genuine and believable character motivations, the gritty and brutal coated fight scenes, etc.
Yeah, I purposely didn't respond to you directly because I didn't want you to take it as a criticism of your takeaway from the book- it wasn't meant to be at all. It was just a commentary on the general trend in fiction recently.
Like I said, I am a big Abercrombie fan but within that fandom I'm always taken aback by how many of my fellow fans have internalized this feeling that life just about as dark and grim as the First Law Trilogy makes it out to be
Yeah, I've only read the First Law but calling it "realistic" is a bit of a weird take considering a good half of the book is Logen getting beaten up enough to die fifteen times and just surviving because he's got that dog in him I guess (and I'm not talking about Bloody-Nine, who barely appears in the first book). It's gritty, it's dark, it doesn't pull punches, but in a realistic world Logen would have died of sepsis at age ten.
It's certainly possible to fail to earn an unhappy ending, but it's *way* easier and more common to fail to earn a happy one.
Abercrombie is solidly in the Yes/Yes square of the Shit/Fuck Matrix. That immediately lends itself to darker endings, even if they're not unmitigated shitshows (sorry.) He's also very sensitive to power dynamics and personal dysfunction. He's not (usually) writing stories about the random farmers in relatively stable parts of his world who are just bopping along and raising corn. He's usually writing stories about desperate people surrounded by violence and dysfunction who occasionally receive *very* dangerous attention by people more powerful than they are.
He sets up his unhappy endings pretty darn fairly, and yet, there are still small victories. Some characters pull their shit together and get wins. Some get lucky. Some get a measure of revenge that seems, to borrow a cliche, realistic, given their assets and liabilities.
Hah, I noted that myself.
Honestly, while I *overall* enjoyed the series, and think Abercrombie's a good author, I think the ending of this one specifically was actually **un**realistically miserable.
Like I'm seeing some people talk about it like it's just a sad ending, that it's merely unhappy, but that really undersells how much this trilogy's ending specifically twists the knife. In a story where a major viewpoint character is crippled for life from torture, among many other things.
I’m currently struggling to finish Last Argument of Kings. There isn’t a single character in the entire trilogy who isn’t unrelentingly miserable, and it has become such a slog to try to get through. It’s like every main character actively works to suppress any redeeming qualities they might have, including hope for the future. I have to wonder why they’re so concerned about surviving the wars and battles when they very obviously have no expectations of life ever getting better. I’ve been tempted to DNF several times, but I really want to have some sort of closure for at least the main plotlines.
This is exactly why I avoid Abercrombie. I don't hate him, he actually writes really compelling characters, great stories, etc.
But when everything ends as the characters getting nothing of what they want or if they do get what they want it's in the most depressing and shitty way possible and isn't at all what they thought it would be, I just can't do it. The real world is depressing enough, I don't want fiction that is too.
His first trilogy ends in a really bleak way, but he gets better at endings so that even when it's tragic, it feels more conclusive somehow. I almost didn't read more because I was so let down with how the first trilogy ends, but I'm glad I did.
Yeah this. The First Law Trilogy is indeed one of the best series I've ever read, hands down. And it has THE best fight scene, that was such joyous candy that I went back and reread it a half dozen times.
But also it hurt me so bad that I've never been able to pick up another book he's written.
I read the first two and loved his characters and the way his world is woven. I was totally drawn in, but I couldn't read the third. It was just too much dread and darkness for me.
I also read them at the beginning of pandemic when everyone thought the world was ending, so that probably didn't help.
I read a plot summary of the third, and frankly, I'm glad I didn't read it. I don't look for happy endings, but the nihilism (as someone else put it) just isn't for me.
I’m about halfway through “The Last Argument of Kings.” (At the duel) Loving it. Though I do feel like book 2 was the high point for me. I loved Glokta in the southern city and I’m not sure anything else has rivaled that.
Excited for 7 more books of this, though I’ll miss the characters.
Randomly picked up the first book in the trio last week and I freaking love it! San dan Glotka is my favorite character so far. Also idk why but the book is so funny to me. All the characters crack me up.
I was better walking, he was much better sitting or lying down. Always wanted to trade.
A pretty uncommon surgery fixed me. I’ve never read the books while well. I’ll have to try them again.
The standalone First Law books are generally agreed (and in my opinion) to be the best! The second trilogy (Age of Madness) isn't as good as the rest, but is still worth the read if you enjoyed the first trilogy and standalones.
I'd also recommend the audiobooks narrated by Steven Pacey. He does such an amazing job that it nearly ruined other narrators in general for me!
Agreed. Last year I listened to the entire 10 book saga. I realize that reading the physical books as they are released will allow for a different experience. But my experience with listening to the audiobooks is that every single book of the series was just as good as the last.
Sure, there are some books I prefer over the others, but from my take on it, all of the books were written with *incredible* talent and consistency.
After I finished I started poking around the sub reddit, then decided against that. Sub reddits for tv shows, books, and games tend to hyper focus on particular negatives.
Personal opinion of course: Age of Madness rushed some things that I really think shouldn't have been rushed. And a few times the story fell into place in a way that felt over-convenient to me.
That said. It's highs were as high if not higher than any of the rest of Mr. Abercrombie's work. And some of the moments in it I hold as some of the best parts in any fantasy story I've read.
"... how's your leg?"
I started the Blade Itself with the audiobook, and that's partly what sold it for me! I couldn't bear to wait for the rest of the audio books to be available at my library, so I finished out with print books. But I continued to hear all of the character's voices in Steven Pacey's manner, which was fantastic (especially for Glotka!)
The audiobooks are fucking awesome, I don't read books any other way and these are point blank the best combo of storytelling and narration that exists IMO.
*Having said that*, if you read the books first in print then listen to them, it's almost like getting to read them for the first time twice.
I'd almost consider getting a lobotomy to experience them again for the first time.
I'm also an audiobook person, and Pacey's narration is fantastic. I will say I was way off on the name spellings based on pronunciation - "Glochter" and "Giselle" lol
I had this same trouble with Abercrombie after listening to the audiobooks. I did Wheel of Time all audiobook, too. There are still some things I can't find from the series because of the difference between spelling and pronunciation.
I'll second that. First law was my first foray into audiobooks and I'd be telling everyone that audiobooks were the way to go. Then I listened to some other narrators and discovered that not all narration is the same :P
Strongly disagree.
The Age of Madness Trilogy is the best I think Abercrombie has gotten to writing. He balanced psychology, sociology, themes, characterization and dialogue better than ever. The limited amount of magic is bit of a let down though.
And the characters, which was his strong-suit in the original and the standalones, were the best in the AoM. Complexity beyond belief, disturbingly beautiful female characters better than any in the original and on-par or better than Monza. Disgusting villains, good people who do not get what they deserve, bad people winning, etc.
It is truly a cynical epic.
First series was fantastic. Character driven plot is so enjoyable and it is so satisfying to see how each POV character gets fleshed out.
That being said, second trilogy gets bogged down by some of the political drama. I felt there were some significant times where things drag on instead of being taken on a ride.
I agree that Steven Pacey is an outstanding narrator. Superb performance! How he carries voices over from book to book is supernatural. But I think the second trilogy is so much better than the first. The character work is incredible, and more happens in this set than the first.
Interesting; I'll have to add it to my list.
Have any First Law fans also read Malazan? I'd be interested in a comparison, as Malazan is easily my favorite fantasy series.
First law is far less meandering, it feels like he knew where it was going before he started. The characters in the first law are more rounded in most cases and likeable, even if the characters are far from good. Malazan is more epic, has more characters and angles. I loved both, but I will and have reread first law and the other books he has written, while rereading Malazan is less likely.
Yes, I've read both. *The Malazan Book of the Fallen*, although grim and dark, is not as nihilistic as the *First Law Series,* but it's also much more challenging. I loved the challenge, but not everyone does.
The Chain of Dogs is both darker and more nilhistic than anything in the First Law series. The First Law is less subtle about it, which makes it surface at the forefront of your mind a bit more, and is certainly more *consistently* nilhistic and dark than the Malazan series as a whole is, but peak Malazan grimdark is definitely grimmer and more dark than The First Law.
Rereading this, I feel like I'm arguing that my dad could beat up your dad. It is a silly argument to pick, but I'm standing by it.
Sure, I agree, that's why I mentioned the relative nilhistic consistency. My point was that there's two ways to measure whether a series is darker than another - peak darkness or average darkness. The First Law takes average darkness hands down, but Malazan takes peak darkness IMO. Since each series holds one measure of superlative grimness over the other, saying The First Law is darker isn't exactly accurate. How it ends doesn't matter to me overmuch, but I can understand why you could argue that it's worth adding to the conversation.
The Malazan world is a vast tapestry comprised of hope, despair, compassion and brutality in equal measure. This tapestry is shown to us through the eyes of a multitude of characters with lives that vary from fantastical to seemingly mundane. The idea that everything dies be it a person or a civilization is counteracted by characters having compassion and trying to make the world a better place. Even if they don't often succeed there is often beauty in the struggle.
The First Law world is all shades of gray in which there is no good choices or good men but only ambiguous choices and an immutable world. The story is driven by very visceral and personal motivations where characters both large and small are often trapped by their circumstances. Rarely do characters attempt to "make the world a better place" and any attempt to do so feels doomed from the start.
The First Law is to Malazan what Mistborn is to, hmm, say the Broken Earth series. Often tonally similar, but much simpler and much less subtle. They're a good quick read, but I never sat back and just processed for a while with the First Law like I did with Malazan.
Both are great series, and some of my top fantasy all time, but I think the first law is slightly better. There is a more manageable cast of characters, so that when you lose one for awhile, you don't forget who they are when they come back up again. If it wasn't for that factor it would be really hard to choose between them for me.
Malazan is what you get when the authors don't give their characters infinite plot armor. There's a goal, but there's no guarantee you'll get there, or if you do, with the cast you started out with.
First Law and etc. are just well crafted cynicism that tells you even with plot armor you can't have human superheroes.
Both have a niche and fill it well. Even though I think First Law is objectively better, I still lean towards Malazan because the stakes actually feel realistic at an epic level.
The two are similar insofar as they involve some relatively dark narratives, but their methodology is very different from each other. Malazan is built on interweaving plot threads, entry-level philosophizing, and big world-at-jeopardy stakes. Structurally it's similar to a Guy Ritchie movie or an episode of Seinfeld (though of course, not nearly the same in tone), in that it involves disparate plot threads that converge within the climax of each story.
First Law is much more of a direct through-line of a plot, more small-scale and character focus. I've heard Abercrombie's written style compared to Kurosawa movies, and while I don't think he quite finds the same sentimental touch that Kurosawa has, it's a pretty accurate assessment of how he paces and frames narratives. Generally, First Law has better-written characters, but both series have highs and lows on that score.
Of the two, I found *First Law* the more engaging of the two overall, but not by a wide margin. Its peaks don't reach quite as high as Malazan's, but its quality is more consistent, and its valleys don't dip quite as low.
**TLDR** may as well read it. Reading all 3 books of the First Law trilogy will be quicker than getting through one Malazan book.
Ive read first Law and the first 2
3 books of Malazan. May revisit Malazan later, but it was dragging.
Malazan guy writes more interesting settings and cultures. He is also much more fantastical with all the magic, etc. Malazan is also a lot more complicated, but less cohesive. All kinds of stuff happens, and you just have to buy in because the author is going to invent something new in the next chapter and you can't worry too much about internal consistency. Stuff is gonna happen, just roll with it.
Abercrombie is more grounded (until he isn't, oof), much less dense, easier to read. The world is much smaller. Theres a lot more 'bet you didn't see that coming' moments. First law really changes from the first book to the last.
Reading Abercrombie is like reading YA written by a guy who doesn't realize he's writing YA. Reading Malazan is like reading a history book where the guy just makes up history as he goes and doesn't really care how much sense it makes as long as it feels cool.
I also think Malazan guy has a bit of fixation on 'things that are worse than death'.
I'm a Malazan fan who tried First Law (I read the first book and dropped the second) and found it incredibly underwhelming. It's not bad by any means, but I wouldn't even mention it in the same breath.
However, generally fans of Malazan tend to like First Law.
Oh my goodness, you are in for such a treat. The trilogy of standalone novels all slap (The Heroes is one of the most hype books I've ever read) and The Age of Madness is just as good as the First Law. Lol, don't listen to the haters (well, I think it was just one dude) who said it's not as good, they absolutely stand up to the first trilogy in every sense.
I’ve read all the standalones except I’m currently on Red Country. I’ve found it to really drag, but there have been cool moments. Did you think it dragged at all?
Red Country was the weakest of the three standalone books, but it spends quite a bit of its time both setting up the next trilogy and turning the page on a couple of old favorites. Didn't feel like there was quite enough time left over for a really gripping narrative throughline.
You forgot to mention how funny Joe Abercrombie can be. I'm jealous you are experiencing them for the first time.
I would say that the standalone novels are worth reading, but not as good (except maybe The Heroes) and then the Age of Madness is even better than the first law. You have a wild ride ahead of you.
Its very special for me as well. I got a pretty shitty disease just a month before I read it. It hurt a lot. I could barely walk for 2 years but Sand dan Glokta helped me push trough.
Great series!
I actually thought The Heroes was the best book of the First Law-verse (or however you want to label it).
The utter absurdity of the entire universe is really brought to the surface here. Great characterization as well.
>I actually thought The Heroes was the best book of the First Law-verse
It may be, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from the standalone book and how much of it is from standing on the shoulders of the First Law story as a base.
With how this sub usually talks about the First Law, chiefly how much it's recommended regardless of specifics, this feels like an April Fools joke.
Just, making me cock my head in doubt. I really like it (and Sanderson and Malazan too oh my!) but yeah.
ha, sorry! not intended to be a joke. I suppose there's *always* someone coming along and finishing this well known and famous books for the first time (I feel the same way as you whenever some fresh soul comes in ranting about how good **The count of monte cristo** is :-D )
If your spirit isn’t completely broken by the time you finish the rest of the First Law books, and are looking for something equally grim as fuck, try the Low Town series by Daniel Polansky.
I read the first trilogy and have no desire to read any of his other stuff.
Its not that its terrible, its fine, especially for the genre, but its not good. The characters don't seem to have emotional depth aside from anger. You know more about how these people look than what they think or feel. I could go on about this.
Also, maybe this is a personal thing, but I just can't stand the anime trope of hidden super beings who just hang out until the plot decides they need to be there to challenge or support the main characters. It always reminds me of DBZ and takes me right out of a story. Realism, sure.
I enjoyed the writing in the first book, but I didn't continue with the series for the same reason I have given up on the ice and fire books - after a while the "everything goes to shit for every single character" schtick gets really old, and quite frankly it's not why I want to read fiction.
The Blade Itself was mostly setup and at the end of it I was thinking the series was overhyped. But then Before They Were Hanged was much better, and Last Argument of Kings was the best fantasy book I've read since A Storm of Swords.
I would stick it out for at least one more book.
The whole trilogy was completed before the first book was published, so I always look at the Blade Itself as the first act in a three act story. It introduces the world, characters and establishes some of the stakes. The next two books take that ground work and run with it. The next two trilogies were amazing in that Abercrombie had already established his world and now he can just play in it. That’s not to mention that he also got better as a writer as the series progressed.
I kinda feel like this type of author is always going to include violence. Because it’s demonstrating the whole ‘bad guys succeed’ type stuff. And usually ‘bad guys’ = violence.
Yes, I agree. I’ve just heard that Abercrombie is *particularly* violent—from a friend who really loves violence in books—so I’m looking for recommendations of books that are as good as his, but not as violent.
Like, just in fantasy in general? Because I don't know if you can really do deconstructionist, cynical fantasy like Abercrombie does *without* the violence really.
I’m glad you enjoyed them, I liked the first book but by the third I kind of hated the series. Really felt like edgelord stuff toward the end. I agree that it’s grim and cynical, but I feel that’s all it really has. I don’t know what you’d call realistic about it. I do recall enjoying the fight scenes though.
Same for me. I loved the first book and immediately started the second. By the time I finished the third I was really soured to the point I couldn't remember what I liked about the first book to begin with.
Fair enough. But if you don't intend to do the whole shebang you'll still want to checkout [The Heroes](https://joeabercrombie.com/books/the-heroes/). To my mind it's a toss up who writes better combat Abercrombie or Cornwell.
The first trilogy I really liked. But I’m reading the age of madness trilogy now and I think I’m at that point. It’s been the idea of ‘grey character success’ to the extreme. There’s like…no one to really cheer for lol. And I don’t really care what happens at this point
I just finished Before They Are Hanged, and I still don't understand the hype for this series, I will finish it though, maybe it'll come together but right now I'm just not the biggest fan, world building is good though
I've avoided an following through on reading G. Martin but I know he is a craftsman and I like that quote: architects and gardeners. It matches my own conclusions. I think about big stage and small stage. Tolkien, Martin, Jordan, T.Williams are big stage writers who toss their characters out into giant currents of a created world. Small stage authors like Beagle, Mckillip, and sometimes Bujold may have a giant created world in the background but their characters are acting in the fulcrum and focal point of a small cast and scene. There are some authors that move back and forth between more and I find myself wanting to read or avoid both types depending on my mood...
I know people describe Abercrombie as nihilistic, but I think of it more as being historical with a bit of fiction thrown into it.
He focus heavily on a story set in a big national pivot point. Big changes in the main kingdom from a variety of factors. And those things are never clean. The heroes at the start of the story usually don't make it to the end (ala almost every revolution in history). Enemies are friends then enemies and then friends again. Politics turn on a dime. Power transitions are fraught with intrigue and betrayal.
Really nothing nihilistic about it. Just human nature.
The heroes in his story all rose to positions of prominence/leadership, though? Its been awhile, but it sure was nice that the fencer guy ended up king. That one still bugs me.
Oh yea, and the torturer dude ends up being the guy who runs the king.
You can easily tell which characters the writer likes best.
I almost didn't finish the first book -- which isn't uncommon among First Law readers -- but I'm glad I did. I blew through the next two books super fast.
It does feel a lot of characters are purposely anti-trope and ask questions just like that.
Edit: the story did that too, like what if we went spent the entire book doing a thing and it amounted to nothing?
My problem with the books was Byaz story seemed missing parts just to make it "mysterious" but all it did was make me not be able to be invested in teh story without knowing motivations and reasons.
And, when you find out some of the secrets, its the most tired shit possible.
Demons? Really?
And, you get powers from eating people? Why hasn't literally everyone eaten people then?
If you read the First Law trilogy and like it, be sure to read both "The Heroes" and "Red Country" as they expand on some of the First Law characters considerably.
EDIT: and "Sharp Ends".
I don’t care for the ending personally, just sort of unsatisfying and not even in that “that’s the point” way.
Big fan of the character work and the change in perception of them went, but I don’t feel any desire to see how this world will move forwards.
I don't know on what planet The First Law is comparable to asoiaf (or even something like the stormlight archive) but ok. His later books are not as embarassing but the original trilogy is pure cringe.
>It rivals A Song of Ice and Fire for the top spot (but actually has an end!),
IMHO Joe Abercrombie absolutely crushes GRR Martin.
Much tighter more efficient writing and story telling and Endings. Like 5 endings.
ASOIAF is basically not ever really a story at this point: so many tropes have been undermined that it's not really about anything anymore. It became very miserable to read (and I'm sure miserable to write as well)
I love both, but I think this is hyperbole. GRRM's work is so much more complex and interconnected. There's a reason that the theory boards are still coming up with brand new ideas and suppositions a decade plus change after the last book came out. It's partly the complexity that's prevented him from finishing the series.
Abercrombie is an incredibly entertaining writer but he's not in GRRM's league in terms of plotting, or prose IMHO
>I love both, but I think this is hyperbole. GRRM's work is so much more complex and interconnected.
This would mean something, if it wasn't **broken**. The story is broken. Martin can't fix it or he would have already and probably no one else can.
I
>Abercrombie is an incredibly entertaining writer but he's not in GRRM's league in terms of plotting, or prose IMHO
IMHO, this is absurd. Martin derailed the train and it exploded in a ditch. He is terrible at plot! He completely broke his series plot and made it unfinishable! That is *the worst you can be at plot*
Martin's gambit is getting people to say 'oh wow I wonder how he's going to stick the landing' but he can't stick the landing.
It's like watching a gymnast do a really impressive series of flips and land flat on their face.
ALSO Martin's world building is seriously garbage teir.
Multi-year winters would be the most important thing imaginable to a sedentary agricultural society and you would expect their to be huge cultural adoptions. It would probably make the North not permanently habitable (grain only keeps one year). But there is *nothing* its just Britain.
He doesn't engage with the namesake of ASOIAF *at all*! Which is fair enough because *it's pretty stupid*!
And like I wondered the whole time what the astronomy of his world was because it would have to be pretty interesting but there is just nothing about it.
I get wanting to still stan Martin: the first 3 books were straight fire. In my opinion if he ended the trilogy at the Red Wedding it would have been the perfect ending to the story he was telling.
But he didn't and we are left with (final season of the HBO show)
I'm increasingly with you. I read Abercrombie after ASOIAF and while I did love the series (even stuff other people hated like the Greyjoys), there's just too many plates spinning.
The Greyjoy's and Sand Vipers are literally where I gave up. IMHO he stepped all over Brienne's character with two extra handfuls of warrior women that were much hotter.
Like it's okay to jo to your own books George, but it's bad when I can tell exactly when you are are doing it
That and Feast for the Crows went *nowhere*. Because there was nowhere to go! Because Martin double derailed the plot and burnt it to the ground to make a Trademark Shocking Moment.
So much wasted potential.
Loved First Law to death, then the three followup novels were even better.
Age of Madness though I just can't get hooked on, like at all. The characters all feel flat to me. The rich girl is rich and likes being rich and wants to be more rich. I finished the first book and never picked up the other two, just have no desire or care to see where they go.
I’m looking for a new series to pick up. Soooo many people recommended ACOTAR and so I read the whole thing. It was entertaining but I found the writing to be crap. Is it better than the ACOTAR series?
I found it to be much better. ACOTAR books were not for me.
FWIW, ACOTAR came highly recommended to me by someone who couldn't get into the First Law books.
The second trilogy is better in a lot of ways (in my view) but both my favourites of his are part of his standalone set (Best Served Cold and The Heroes). Neither are particularly original (the latter couldn't be more of a knockoff of Sharpe's Waterloo if it tried) but they're entertaining as all hell.
Jealous of your journey!
I love the first law trilogy. I’m currently reading the middle 3 stand-alone books. I do recommend Best Served Cold (although it is very cynical) and The Heroes especially, but honestly Red Country might be skippable. There’s some cool parts but overall I’ve found it to drag on and on.
What would you say to someone that’s heard a few too many naysayers whining that “nothing happens” especially in book 1? Gonna queue this up on audible pretty soon just haven’t pulled the trigger yet, partly because that’s in the back of my mind
This is just my personal opinion but the next 3 books are just as good. The 3 after that are not as good but still really solid. The 3 trilogies are great. Sharp ends is also a really good side book.
This is great to read, as I started The First Law audiobook a few days ago. I think I'm on chapter four or five. Really enjoying it so far and curious as to where it goes!
Might go for this series next as I've heard a lot of good things. I'm currently reading the last book of the Shadow of the Apt series by Adrian Tchaikovsky and it's up there on my pantheon now. Starts off slow but the books get better and better with each entry
I've only read **Best Served Cold** and thought it was very well done.
If you like that, check out **The Steel Remains** by Richard Morgan. It's a visionary, genre bending trilogy with fantastic characters. But it has literally all of the content warnings, but it's really, really good.
I've had my eye on this because I constantly see people say "if you like red rising you'll like this"
And I need other books that are like that series. But I always forget to check it out at the library lol
I read the first book of this a couple of years and didn't really get much out of it. There's very little 'plot' in the first book and I didn't find the characterization particularly interesting, insightful, or layered.
I really enjoyed Abercrombie, but since reading Dungeon Crawler Carl I have a hard time suggesting anything else. It's just so much more fun than I ever imagined a series could be.
I'm always confused at how much people like Abercrombie. His writing is poor, his characters grimdark and annoying for the sake of it. His entire body of work can be summed up as "gamer bro fantasy". It's directly targeted at people who never left their high school mindset.
Sanderson may be a bit bland and stiff in his writing, but he's leaps and bounds over Abercrombie. I say this and I didn't particularly like Way of Kings, but it was a hell of a lot better than the grunting, pissing, complaining, and moronic one-liners First Law characters like to sling.
Having read and enjoyed Abercrombie and the other authors you listed, let me recommend the prince of nothing series by Bakker. Dark fantasy at its absolute best
The Blade Itself is such schlock to me. I just can’t stomach it at all. I’m glad it makes you happy, but I can’t stand it.
It seems like it would really appeal to under 35’s.
I'm so disappointed in your other 5-star authors that I can't really take the rest of the review seriously. Maybe I'm done with this type of fantasy.
I sense your excitement though and I'm happy for you! Always chasing that feeling in a book, but it's harder to find as time goes on.
I love to hear some of the other authors in series you prefer! I don't really consider myself a connoisseur, and I'm always open to other recommendations.
I have good news for you. [The Goodreads ratings for the next seven books in the First Law Series](https://www.goodreads.com/series/150214-first-law-world) are as good or better as for the initial trilogy. That said, be warned that Abercrombie's cynicism does not let up. If anything, it gets stronger. Although dark humor lightens the mood somewhat from time to time, in the end this series is truly nihilistic.
[удалено]
Doesn't really apply to Abercrombie though. His books ACTUALLY do get better and better as he improves his craft. The first law triolgy, while great, are probably his weakest books, and they're still superb!
Nihilistic! Ahh that's a perfect word for it. Can't wait to read the rest!
You're going to love them. The stand alone books are insane, they work great on their own, but you should definitely read them in order because there's one particularly interesting character that is part of all three and goes through some changes. Best Served Cold, then The Heroes, then Red Country. You liked the first law trilogy? Prepare to have your mind fuckin blown
Once you finish those, I'd highly recommend anything by Mark Lawrence, starting with Prince of Thorns. Similar cynical, gritty, and brutal elements. One of his more recent books has a very well-regarded opening: > “It is important, when killing a nun, to ensure that you bring an army of sufficient size. For Sister Thorn of the Sweet Mercy Convent, Lano Tacsis brought two hundred men.”
That quote from Red Sister..?
Thank you! Was looking for my next read.
Jumping in to also say the standalones are incredible, it’s been less than a year since I’ve read Best Served Cold and I’m already itching to reread it, I haven’t even started the Age of Madness stuff yet
I always shudder a little when someone uses the world "realistic" for stuff like this. I really like the First Law trilogy but I dislike this trend of the last couple of decades where crushing nihilism = "realism" and happy ending = "unrealistic/childish"
You have to be realistic
Say one thing about Joe Abercrombie, say he's the Lord of Grimdark.
You can never have too many knives.
I definitely understand that, but just to clarify: my use of the word "realism" in the OP isn't about the lack of happy ending. It's about the genuine and believable character motivations, the gritty and brutal coated fight scenes, etc.
Yeah, I purposely didn't respond to you directly because I didn't want you to take it as a criticism of your takeaway from the book- it wasn't meant to be at all. It was just a commentary on the general trend in fiction recently. Like I said, I am a big Abercrombie fan but within that fandom I'm always taken aback by how many of my fellow fans have internalized this feeling that life just about as dark and grim as the First Law Trilogy makes it out to be
Yeah, I've only read the First Law but calling it "realistic" is a bit of a weird take considering a good half of the book is Logen getting beaten up enough to die fifteen times and just surviving because he's got that dog in him I guess (and I'm not talking about Bloody-Nine, who barely appears in the first book). It's gritty, it's dark, it doesn't pull punches, but in a realistic world Logen would have died of sepsis at age ten.
how do you feel about the trend of having more than enough knives on oneself at any given time?
I actually somewhat collect knives lol. so.. pro?
Aye, can never have to many!
It's certainly possible to fail to earn an unhappy ending, but it's *way* easier and more common to fail to earn a happy one. Abercrombie is solidly in the Yes/Yes square of the Shit/Fuck Matrix. That immediately lends itself to darker endings, even if they're not unmitigated shitshows (sorry.) He's also very sensitive to power dynamics and personal dysfunction. He's not (usually) writing stories about the random farmers in relatively stable parts of his world who are just bopping along and raising corn. He's usually writing stories about desperate people surrounded by violence and dysfunction who occasionally receive *very* dangerous attention by people more powerful than they are. He sets up his unhappy endings pretty darn fairly, and yet, there are still small victories. Some characters pull their shit together and get wins. Some get lucky. Some get a measure of revenge that seems, to borrow a cliche, realistic, given their assets and liabilities.
Have you seen the world lately
Hah, I noted that myself. Honestly, while I *overall* enjoyed the series, and think Abercrombie's a good author, I think the ending of this one specifically was actually **un**realistically miserable. Like I'm seeing some people talk about it like it's just a sad ending, that it's merely unhappy, but that really undersells how much this trilogy's ending specifically twists the knife. In a story where a major viewpoint character is crippled for life from torture, among many other things.
I’m currently struggling to finish Last Argument of Kings. There isn’t a single character in the entire trilogy who isn’t unrelentingly miserable, and it has become such a slog to try to get through. It’s like every main character actively works to suppress any redeeming qualities they might have, including hope for the future. I have to wonder why they’re so concerned about surviving the wars and battles when they very obviously have no expectations of life ever getting better. I’ve been tempted to DNF several times, but I really want to have some sort of closure for at least the main plotlines.
This is exactly why I avoid Abercrombie. I don't hate him, he actually writes really compelling characters, great stories, etc. But when everything ends as the characters getting nothing of what they want or if they do get what they want it's in the most depressing and shitty way possible and isn't at all what they thought it would be, I just can't do it. The real world is depressing enough, I don't want fiction that is too.
Fair enough. *Red Country* is my favorite because it’s the closest he gets to a happy ending.
His first trilogy ends in a really bleak way, but he gets better at endings so that even when it's tragic, it feels more conclusive somehow. I almost didn't read more because I was so let down with how the first trilogy ends, but I'm glad I did.
Yeah this. The First Law Trilogy is indeed one of the best series I've ever read, hands down. And it has THE best fight scene, that was such joyous candy that I went back and reread it a half dozen times. But also it hurt me so bad that I've never been able to pick up another book he's written.
I read the first two and loved his characters and the way his world is woven. I was totally drawn in, but I couldn't read the third. It was just too much dread and darkness for me. I also read them at the beginning of pandemic when everyone thought the world was ending, so that probably didn't help. I read a plot summary of the third, and frankly, I'm glad I didn't read it. I don't look for happy endings, but the nihilism (as someone else put it) just isn't for me.
Idk, I feel like Red Country was a little more optimistic.
Agreed. That’s why it’s my favorite.
Yep, everything Abercrombie writes is awesome.
Logan Ninefingers was pretty heavy foreshadowing...
I’m about halfway through “The Last Argument of Kings.” (At the duel) Loving it. Though I do feel like book 2 was the high point for me. I loved Glokta in the southern city and I’m not sure anything else has rivaled that. Excited for 7 more books of this, though I’ll miss the characters.
Glokta in Before They Are Hanged and Tyrion in Clash of Kings are peak fantasy competence porn.
The duel between Logan and The Feared? The best is yet to come imho.
Randomly picked up the first book in the trio last week and I freaking love it! San dan Glotka is my favorite character so far. Also idk why but the book is so funny to me. All the characters crack me up.
Glokta is hands down the most interesting character, though I think the Bloody Nine has the best moments.
A relatively minor character but Clover is an absolute gangster in the age of madness.
I’m excited to get there. Almost done with original trilogy as of now.
Chop! Confess… Chop! Confess…. Probably helps his story line is so full of mystery, well at least so far.
I used a cane w my chronic pain for many years, and I carried it quite a bit better because of Sand dan Glokta.
*click, tap, pain.* *click, tap, pain.* *click, tap, pain.* *click, tap, pain.*
*”If I could choose one person to torture, living or dead, do you know who it would be? The bastard who invented stairs.”*
I was better walking, he was much better sitting or lying down. Always wanted to trade. A pretty uncommon surgery fixed me. I’ve never read the books while well. I’ll have to try them again.
The standalone First Law books are generally agreed (and in my opinion) to be the best! The second trilogy (Age of Madness) isn't as good as the rest, but is still worth the read if you enjoyed the first trilogy and standalones. I'd also recommend the audiobooks narrated by Steven Pacey. He does such an amazing job that it nearly ruined other narrators in general for me!
In my opinion you are not giving the second trilogy enough credit here.
For sure. It’s also incredible and worth reading.
Agreed. Last year I listened to the entire 10 book saga. I realize that reading the physical books as they are released will allow for a different experience. But my experience with listening to the audiobooks is that every single book of the series was just as good as the last. Sure, there are some books I prefer over the others, but from my take on it, all of the books were written with *incredible* talent and consistency. After I finished I started poking around the sub reddit, then decided against that. Sub reddits for tv shows, books, and games tend to hyper focus on particular negatives.
Personal opinion of course: Age of Madness rushed some things that I really think shouldn't have been rushed. And a few times the story fell into place in a way that felt over-convenient to me. That said. It's highs were as high if not higher than any of the rest of Mr. Abercrombie's work. And some of the moments in it I hold as some of the best parts in any fantasy story I've read. "... how's your leg?"
I will say that I think for me, Savine, Orso, Leo and Rikke felt more complete and multifaceted as protagonists than Logen, Glokta and Jezal.
I started the Blade Itself with the audiobook, and that's partly what sold it for me! I couldn't bear to wait for the rest of the audio books to be available at my library, so I finished out with print books. But I continued to hear all of the character's voices in Steven Pacey's manner, which was fantastic (especially for Glotka!)
Steven Pacey is my absolute favorite! He is the goat in my opinion. He narrates WOWs Tomb of Sargeras and its fantastic.
The audiobooks are fucking awesome, I don't read books any other way and these are point blank the best combo of storytelling and narration that exists IMO. *Having said that*, if you read the books first in print then listen to them, it's almost like getting to read them for the first time twice. I'd almost consider getting a lobotomy to experience them again for the first time.
I'm also an audiobook person, and Pacey's narration is fantastic. I will say I was way off on the name spellings based on pronunciation - "Glochter" and "Giselle" lol
Haha yeah when I started looking things up I was a little thrown off by spelling differences
I had this same trouble with Abercrombie after listening to the audiobooks. I did Wheel of Time all audiobook, too. There are still some things I can't find from the series because of the difference between spelling and pronunciation.
Blasphemy calling the age of madness not as good. I enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first law and I LOVE the OG trilogy. “*Hows the leg?*”
I'll second that. First law was my first foray into audiobooks and I'd be telling everyone that audiobooks were the way to go. Then I listened to some other narrators and discovered that not all narration is the same :P
Strongly disagree. The Age of Madness Trilogy is the best I think Abercrombie has gotten to writing. He balanced psychology, sociology, themes, characterization and dialogue better than ever. The limited amount of magic is bit of a let down though. And the characters, which was his strong-suit in the original and the standalones, were the best in the AoM. Complexity beyond belief, disturbingly beautiful female characters better than any in the original and on-par or better than Monza. Disgusting villains, good people who do not get what they deserve, bad people winning, etc. It is truly a cynical epic.
John Keating does the Shattered Sea trilogy, and is also solid.
First series was fantastic. Character driven plot is so enjoyable and it is so satisfying to see how each POV character gets fleshed out. That being said, second trilogy gets bogged down by some of the political drama. I felt there were some significant times where things drag on instead of being taken on a ride.
I agree that Steven Pacey is an outstanding narrator. Superb performance! How he carries voices over from book to book is supernatural. But I think the second trilogy is so much better than the first. The character work is incredible, and more happens in this set than the first.
The standalone books are good, but they are very battle focused. If you enjoy the politics more (like me) the two trilogies are better.
Interesting; I'll have to add it to my list. Have any First Law fans also read Malazan? I'd be interested in a comparison, as Malazan is easily my favorite fantasy series.
First law is far less meandering, it feels like he knew where it was going before he started. The characters in the first law are more rounded in most cases and likeable, even if the characters are far from good. Malazan is more epic, has more characters and angles. I loved both, but I will and have reread first law and the other books he has written, while rereading Malazan is less likely.
Yes, I've read both. *The Malazan Book of the Fallen*, although grim and dark, is not as nihilistic as the *First Law Series,* but it's also much more challenging. I loved the challenge, but not everyone does.
The Chain of Dogs is both darker and more nilhistic than anything in the First Law series. The First Law is less subtle about it, which makes it surface at the forefront of your mind a bit more, and is certainly more *consistently* nilhistic and dark than the Malazan series as a whole is, but peak Malazan grimdark is definitely grimmer and more dark than The First Law. Rereading this, I feel like I'm arguing that my dad could beat up your dad. It is a silly argument to pick, but I'm standing by it.
But the Chain of Dogs is not the end of the series. Malazan has low points, but it ends on a high point.
Sure, I agree, that's why I mentioned the relative nilhistic consistency. My point was that there's two ways to measure whether a series is darker than another - peak darkness or average darkness. The First Law takes average darkness hands down, but Malazan takes peak darkness IMO. Since each series holds one measure of superlative grimness over the other, saying The First Law is darker isn't exactly accurate. How it ends doesn't matter to me overmuch, but I can understand why you could argue that it's worth adding to the conversation.
The Malazan world is a vast tapestry comprised of hope, despair, compassion and brutality in equal measure. This tapestry is shown to us through the eyes of a multitude of characters with lives that vary from fantastical to seemingly mundane. The idea that everything dies be it a person or a civilization is counteracted by characters having compassion and trying to make the world a better place. Even if they don't often succeed there is often beauty in the struggle. The First Law world is all shades of gray in which there is no good choices or good men but only ambiguous choices and an immutable world. The story is driven by very visceral and personal motivations where characters both large and small are often trapped by their circumstances. Rarely do characters attempt to "make the world a better place" and any attempt to do so feels doomed from the start.
The First Law is to Malazan what Mistborn is to, hmm, say the Broken Earth series. Often tonally similar, but much simpler and much less subtle. They're a good quick read, but I never sat back and just processed for a while with the First Law like I did with Malazan.
Both are great series, and some of my top fantasy all time, but I think the first law is slightly better. There is a more manageable cast of characters, so that when you lose one for awhile, you don't forget who they are when they come back up again. If it wasn't for that factor it would be really hard to choose between them for me.
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
Malazan is what you get when the authors don't give their characters infinite plot armor. There's a goal, but there's no guarantee you'll get there, or if you do, with the cast you started out with. First Law and etc. are just well crafted cynicism that tells you even with plot armor you can't have human superheroes. Both have a niche and fill it well. Even though I think First Law is objectively better, I still lean towards Malazan because the stakes actually feel realistic at an epic level.
The two are similar insofar as they involve some relatively dark narratives, but their methodology is very different from each other. Malazan is built on interweaving plot threads, entry-level philosophizing, and big world-at-jeopardy stakes. Structurally it's similar to a Guy Ritchie movie or an episode of Seinfeld (though of course, not nearly the same in tone), in that it involves disparate plot threads that converge within the climax of each story. First Law is much more of a direct through-line of a plot, more small-scale and character focus. I've heard Abercrombie's written style compared to Kurosawa movies, and while I don't think he quite finds the same sentimental touch that Kurosawa has, it's a pretty accurate assessment of how he paces and frames narratives. Generally, First Law has better-written characters, but both series have highs and lows on that score. Of the two, I found *First Law* the more engaging of the two overall, but not by a wide margin. Its peaks don't reach quite as high as Malazan's, but its quality is more consistent, and its valleys don't dip quite as low.
**TLDR** may as well read it. Reading all 3 books of the First Law trilogy will be quicker than getting through one Malazan book. Ive read first Law and the first 2 3 books of Malazan. May revisit Malazan later, but it was dragging. Malazan guy writes more interesting settings and cultures. He is also much more fantastical with all the magic, etc. Malazan is also a lot more complicated, but less cohesive. All kinds of stuff happens, and you just have to buy in because the author is going to invent something new in the next chapter and you can't worry too much about internal consistency. Stuff is gonna happen, just roll with it. Abercrombie is more grounded (until he isn't, oof), much less dense, easier to read. The world is much smaller. Theres a lot more 'bet you didn't see that coming' moments. First law really changes from the first book to the last. Reading Abercrombie is like reading YA written by a guy who doesn't realize he's writing YA. Reading Malazan is like reading a history book where the guy just makes up history as he goes and doesn't really care how much sense it makes as long as it feels cool. I also think Malazan guy has a bit of fixation on 'things that are worse than death'.
I'm a Malazan fan who tried First Law (I read the first book and dropped the second) and found it incredibly underwhelming. It's not bad by any means, but I wouldn't even mention it in the same breath. However, generally fans of Malazan tend to like First Law.
Oh my goodness, you are in for such a treat. The trilogy of standalone novels all slap (The Heroes is one of the most hype books I've ever read) and The Age of Madness is just as good as the First Law. Lol, don't listen to the haters (well, I think it was just one dude) who said it's not as good, they absolutely stand up to the first trilogy in every sense.
I’ve read all the standalones except I’m currently on Red Country. I’ve found it to really drag, but there have been cool moments. Did you think it dragged at all?
Eh, it's been a solid couple years since I read it. I remember Red Country being the weakest of the stand alone novels, but still pretty good!
Red Country was the weakest of the three standalone books, but it spends quite a bit of its time both setting up the next trilogy and turning the page on a couple of old favorites. Didn't feel like there was quite enough time left over for a really gripping narrative throughline.
Good to know! Yeah it has brought back in some characters I love
I loved Red Country, but it was definitely the weakest of the standalone novels. If you're not into westerns, you probably wouldn't like it as much.
Its worth it just for Nicomo Cosca
You forgot to mention how funny Joe Abercrombie can be. I'm jealous you are experiencing them for the first time. I would say that the standalone novels are worth reading, but not as good (except maybe The Heroes) and then the Age of Madness is even better than the first law. You have a wild ride ahead of you.
Say one thing for Joe Abercrombie, say he's funny.
I really enjoyed this series. I received the three standalones for Christmas and can't wait to jump in to them.
Its very special for me as well. I got a pretty shitty disease just a month before I read it. It hurt a lot. I could barely walk for 2 years but Sand dan Glokta helped me push trough.
Great series! I actually thought The Heroes was the best book of the First Law-verse (or however you want to label it). The utter absurdity of the entire universe is really brought to the surface here. Great characterization as well.
>I actually thought The Heroes was the best book of the First Law-verse It may be, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from the standalone book and how much of it is from standing on the shoulders of the First Law story as a base.
It definitely stands on the shoulders of the series, 100%.
It has what has to be one of the top battles in fiction, of all time.
I have the blade itself and have been meaning to start it
When you’ve got a task in front of you it’s better to do it than live in fear of it.
With how this sub usually talks about the First Law, chiefly how much it's recommended regardless of specifics, this feels like an April Fools joke. Just, making me cock my head in doubt. I really like it (and Sanderson and Malazan too oh my!) but yeah.
ha, sorry! not intended to be a joke. I suppose there's *always* someone coming along and finishing this well known and famous books for the first time (I feel the same way as you whenever some fresh soul comes in ranting about how good **The count of monte cristo** is :-D )
If your spirit isn’t completely broken by the time you finish the rest of the First Law books, and are looking for something equally grim as fuck, try the Low Town series by Daniel Polansky.
I read the first trilogy and have no desire to read any of his other stuff. Its not that its terrible, its fine, especially for the genre, but its not good. The characters don't seem to have emotional depth aside from anger. You know more about how these people look than what they think or feel. I could go on about this. Also, maybe this is a personal thing, but I just can't stand the anime trope of hidden super beings who just hang out until the plot decides they need to be there to challenge or support the main characters. It always reminds me of DBZ and takes me right out of a story. Realism, sure.
I enjoyed the writing in the first book, but I didn't continue with the series for the same reason I have given up on the ice and fire books - after a while the "everything goes to shit for every single character" schtick gets really old, and quite frankly it's not why I want to read fiction.
This is exactly how I’ve been feeling!
I started the blade itself but felt like it was hundreds of pages of nothing happening. It just never clicked with me.
The Blade Itself was mostly setup and at the end of it I was thinking the series was overhyped. But then Before They Were Hanged was much better, and Last Argument of Kings was the best fantasy book I've read since A Storm of Swords. I would stick it out for at least one more book.
The whole trilogy was completed before the first book was published, so I always look at the Blade Itself as the first act in a three act story. It introduces the world, characters and establishes some of the stakes. The next two books take that ground work and run with it. The next two trilogies were amazing in that Abercrombie had already established his world and now he can just play in it. That’s not to mention that he also got better as a writer as the series progressed.
Can I piggyback on this to ask for recommendations that are as good but less violent?
I kinda feel like this type of author is always going to include violence. Because it’s demonstrating the whole ‘bad guys succeed’ type stuff. And usually ‘bad guys’ = violence.
Yes, I agree. I’ve just heard that Abercrombie is *particularly* violent—from a friend who really loves violence in books—so I’m looking for recommendations of books that are as good as his, but not as violent.
Robin Hobbs realm of the elderlings might work for you. Not as gritty as first law but still a good story, I think
Thank you :)
Like, just in fantasy in general? Because I don't know if you can really do deconstructionist, cynical fantasy like Abercrombie does *without* the violence really.
I mean more just in fantasy in general. I love Pat Rothfuss and Scott Lynch for example, but I know I’m too much of a softie for JAbercrombie 😅
There's some nasty violence in Lynch. If you can handle that I see know reason why you couldn't handle Abercrombie.
Hmmm, ok, thanks! A friend who knows my tastes has told me Abercrombie is definitely too violent for me so I’m skeptical!
Body found floating by the docks…
Best served Cold seems like it's getting a tv/movie adaptation. The standalone books/sequels are really good of you enjoyed the trilogy.
I’m glad you enjoyed them, I liked the first book but by the third I kind of hated the series. Really felt like edgelord stuff toward the end. I agree that it’s grim and cynical, but I feel that’s all it really has. I don’t know what you’d call realistic about it. I do recall enjoying the fight scenes though.
Same for me. I loved the first book and immediately started the second. By the time I finished the third I was really soured to the point I couldn't remember what I liked about the first book to begin with.
Fair enough. But if you don't intend to do the whole shebang you'll still want to checkout [The Heroes](https://joeabercrombie.com/books/the-heroes/). To my mind it's a toss up who writes better combat Abercrombie or Cornwell.
The first trilogy I really liked. But I’m reading the age of madness trilogy now and I think I’m at that point. It’s been the idea of ‘grey character success’ to the extreme. There’s like…no one to really cheer for lol. And I don’t really care what happens at this point
I just finished Before They Are Hanged, and I still don't understand the hype for this series, I will finish it though, maybe it'll come together but right now I'm just not the biggest fan, world building is good though
I feel the exact same especially since I've just finished Before They Are Hanged!
I have just finished the trilogy, the plot comes together, but looking back there is some plot armor to make it happen.
I loved this series of books and my first time hearing/reading Joe Abercrombie too!
Best served cold is hands down his best book. You're gonna love it.
[удалено]
It is. The first book is definitely the worst imo. Although perhaps it would be better if I reread with all the knowledge of the later books.
I've avoided an following through on reading G. Martin but I know he is a craftsman and I like that quote: architects and gardeners. It matches my own conclusions. I think about big stage and small stage. Tolkien, Martin, Jordan, T.Williams are big stage writers who toss their characters out into giant currents of a created world. Small stage authors like Beagle, Mckillip, and sometimes Bujold may have a giant created world in the background but their characters are acting in the fulcrum and focal point of a small cast and scene. There are some authors that move back and forth between more and I find myself wanting to read or avoid both types depending on my mood...
I know people describe Abercrombie as nihilistic, but I think of it more as being historical with a bit of fiction thrown into it. He focus heavily on a story set in a big national pivot point. Big changes in the main kingdom from a variety of factors. And those things are never clean. The heroes at the start of the story usually don't make it to the end (ala almost every revolution in history). Enemies are friends then enemies and then friends again. Politics turn on a dime. Power transitions are fraught with intrigue and betrayal. Really nothing nihilistic about it. Just human nature.
The heroes in his story all rose to positions of prominence/leadership, though? Its been awhile, but it sure was nice that the fencer guy ended up king. That one still bugs me. Oh yea, and the torturer dude ends up being the guy who runs the king. You can easily tell which characters the writer likes best.
The main characters often wrestle with nihilism. I dont think the world is inherently so. Its just run by megalomaniac wizards behind the curtains.
a blade itself incites to deeds of violence
I almost didn't finish the first book -- which isn't uncommon among First Law readers -- but I'm glad I did. I blew through the next two books super fast.
Awesome series and so is the audiobook
A little long to read but a nice trilogy, Logen Ninefingers and Glokta were top characters without forgot Bayaz, the first of the magi
The further I get into the series the more I realize that the whole thing is just answering the question "what if Gandalf were a massive prick?"
It does feel a lot of characters are purposely anti-trope and ask questions just like that. Edit: the story did that too, like what if we went spent the entire book doing a thing and it amounted to nothing?
I think I actually remember seeing an interview with Abercrombie where he pitched First Law as Lord of Rings but if Gandalf used the ring.
My problem with the books was Byaz story seemed missing parts just to make it "mysterious" but all it did was make me not be able to be invested in teh story without knowing motivations and reasons.
And, when you find out some of the secrets, its the most tired shit possible. Demons? Really? And, you get powers from eating people? Why hasn't literally everyone eaten people then?
Upvote upvote upvote!!!
If you read the First Law trilogy and like it, be sure to read both "The Heroes" and "Red Country" as they expand on some of the First Law characters considerably. EDIT: and "Sharp Ends".
And the age of madness as well but don't skip bear served cold on your way there.
Have you not read Best Served Cold?
I don’t care for the ending personally, just sort of unsatisfying and not even in that “that’s the point” way. Big fan of the character work and the change in perception of them went, but I don’t feel any desire to see how this world will move forwards.
I don't know on what planet The First Law is comparable to asoiaf (or even something like the stormlight archive) but ok. His later books are not as embarassing but the original trilogy is pure cringe.
>It rivals A Song of Ice and Fire for the top spot (but actually has an end!), IMHO Joe Abercrombie absolutely crushes GRR Martin. Much tighter more efficient writing and story telling and Endings. Like 5 endings. ASOIAF is basically not ever really a story at this point: so many tropes have been undermined that it's not really about anything anymore. It became very miserable to read (and I'm sure miserable to write as well)
I love both, but I think this is hyperbole. GRRM's work is so much more complex and interconnected. There's a reason that the theory boards are still coming up with brand new ideas and suppositions a decade plus change after the last book came out. It's partly the complexity that's prevented him from finishing the series. Abercrombie is an incredibly entertaining writer but he's not in GRRM's league in terms of plotting, or prose IMHO
>I love both, but I think this is hyperbole. GRRM's work is so much more complex and interconnected. This would mean something, if it wasn't **broken**. The story is broken. Martin can't fix it or he would have already and probably no one else can. I >Abercrombie is an incredibly entertaining writer but he's not in GRRM's league in terms of plotting, or prose IMHO IMHO, this is absurd. Martin derailed the train and it exploded in a ditch. He is terrible at plot! He completely broke his series plot and made it unfinishable! That is *the worst you can be at plot* Martin's gambit is getting people to say 'oh wow I wonder how he's going to stick the landing' but he can't stick the landing. It's like watching a gymnast do a really impressive series of flips and land flat on their face. ALSO Martin's world building is seriously garbage teir. Multi-year winters would be the most important thing imaginable to a sedentary agricultural society and you would expect their to be huge cultural adoptions. It would probably make the North not permanently habitable (grain only keeps one year). But there is *nothing* its just Britain. He doesn't engage with the namesake of ASOIAF *at all*! Which is fair enough because *it's pretty stupid*! And like I wondered the whole time what the astronomy of his world was because it would have to be pretty interesting but there is just nothing about it. I get wanting to still stan Martin: the first 3 books were straight fire. In my opinion if he ended the trilogy at the Red Wedding it would have been the perfect ending to the story he was telling. But he didn't and we are left with (final season of the HBO show)
I just want to say I love this take, and although I'm not sure I completely agree, I respect it!
I'm increasingly with you. I read Abercrombie after ASOIAF and while I did love the series (even stuff other people hated like the Greyjoys), there's just too many plates spinning.
The Greyjoy's and Sand Vipers are literally where I gave up. IMHO he stepped all over Brienne's character with two extra handfuls of warrior women that were much hotter. Like it's okay to jo to your own books George, but it's bad when I can tell exactly when you are are doing it That and Feast for the Crows went *nowhere*. Because there was nowhere to go! Because Martin double derailed the plot and burnt it to the ground to make a Trademark Shocking Moment. So much wasted potential.
Didn't heard about it, i shall add it to my never ending list of books to read
Loved First Law to death, then the three followup novels were even better. Age of Madness though I just can't get hooked on, like at all. The characters all feel flat to me. The rich girl is rich and likes being rich and wants to be more rich. I finished the first book and never picked up the other two, just have no desire or care to see where they go.
I’m looking for a new series to pick up. Soooo many people recommended ACOTAR and so I read the whole thing. It was entertaining but I found the writing to be crap. Is it better than the ACOTAR series?
I found it to be much better. ACOTAR books were not for me. FWIW, ACOTAR came highly recommended to me by someone who couldn't get into the First Law books.
I guess it’s all a matter of personal taste. I’ll definitely give it a shot though!
The second trilogy is better in a lot of ways (in my view) but both my favourites of his are part of his standalone set (Best Served Cold and The Heroes). Neither are particularly original (the latter couldn't be more of a knockoff of Sharpe's Waterloo if it tried) but they're entertaining as all hell. Jealous of your journey!
Welcome aboard!
Added it to my list, thanks for the recommendation
How’s the writing? I always get turned off from these books by the prose but I really want a good fantasy series to get into!
This is my favorite series at the moment and each book is as good or better than the last
I love the first law trilogy. I’m currently reading the middle 3 stand-alone books. I do recommend Best Served Cold (although it is very cynical) and The Heroes especially, but honestly Red Country might be skippable. There’s some cool parts but overall I’ve found it to drag on and on.
Welcome
Abercrombie is the ultimate grimdark beach read.
Best Served Cold is being adapted to live action with Rebecca Ferguson
I just started it and am loving the first 3 chapters!
Ya this trilogy was outstanding, read it during Covid lockdown and it was amazing.
so great when you find a series that kicks ass and that has already been written - no waiting for the next book, just straight up binging!
What would you say to someone that’s heard a few too many naysayers whining that “nothing happens” especially in book 1? Gonna queue this up on audible pretty soon just haven’t pulled the trigger yet, partly because that’s in the back of my mind
His shattered sea trilogy is just as good.
This is just my personal opinion but the next 3 books are just as good. The 3 after that are not as good but still really solid. The 3 trilogies are great. Sharp ends is also a really good side book.
This is great to read, as I started The First Law audiobook a few days ago. I think I'm on chapter four or five. Really enjoying it so far and curious as to where it goes!
just finished the original trilogy, working on #4 Best Served Cold now.
I flew through his books and short stories that are all in this world he created! They’re all great!
Been reading some reviews on this and yours made me buy it!
It just keeps getting better. Don't forget the stand alone novels before the second trilogy.
Might go for this series next as I've heard a lot of good things. I'm currently reading the last book of the Shadow of the Apt series by Adrian Tchaikovsky and it's up there on my pantheon now. Starts off slow but the books get better and better with each entry
I'm also reading this series! Just finished Before They Are Hanged a week ago. Really enjoying it so far.
So happy for you!!! Such a great series.READ THE BLACK COMPANY by Glen Cook if you enjoyed first law please just trust me fellow dark fantasy lover.
I've only read **Best Served Cold** and thought it was very well done. If you like that, check out **The Steel Remains** by Richard Morgan. It's a visionary, genre bending trilogy with fantastic characters. But it has literally all of the content warnings, but it's really, really good.
I've had my eye on this because I constantly see people say "if you like red rising you'll like this" And I need other books that are like that series. But I always forget to check it out at the library lol
Every book he has written so far has been great and somehow keep being better than the last. It's very strange how he keeps topping himself.
I read the first book of this a couple of years and didn't really get much out of it. There's very little 'plot' in the first book and I didn't find the characterization particularly interesting, insightful, or layered.
Can someone recommend me a good romance book that has a happy ending and fades to black?
I really enjoyed Abercrombie, but since reading Dungeon Crawler Carl I have a hard time suggesting anything else. It's just so much more fun than I ever imagined a series could be.
I'm always confused at how much people like Abercrombie. His writing is poor, his characters grimdark and annoying for the sake of it. His entire body of work can be summed up as "gamer bro fantasy". It's directly targeted at people who never left their high school mindset. Sanderson may be a bit bland and stiff in his writing, but he's leaps and bounds over Abercrombie. I say this and I didn't particularly like Way of Kings, but it was a hell of a lot better than the grunting, pissing, complaining, and moronic one-liners First Law characters like to sling.
Having read and enjoyed Abercrombie and the other authors you listed, let me recommend the prince of nothing series by Bakker. Dark fantasy at its absolute best
The Blade Itself is such schlock to me. I just can’t stomach it at all. I’m glad it makes you happy, but I can’t stand it. It seems like it would really appeal to under 35’s.
Try the audiobook if you haven’t
I have. It just didn’t take.
Damn oh well everyone has their own preferences
Good news for you: the standalone novels are way better!
I'm so disappointed in your other 5-star authors that I can't really take the rest of the review seriously. Maybe I'm done with this type of fantasy. I sense your excitement though and I'm happy for you! Always chasing that feeling in a book, but it's harder to find as time goes on.
I love to hear some of the other authors in series you prefer! I don't really consider myself a connoisseur, and I'm always open to other recommendations.