The Last Argument of King
14 May 2008 05:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
salineaI finished reading Abercrombie's Last Argument of Kings last week, and been mulling over it a bit since then.
Overall a good book, and a great conclusion to the series, definitly on par with the quality of Before They Are Hanged. There were a few details on which the book was less strong, or which disapointed me, but he reading itself was delightful, and the series is definitly thought inducing.
First flaw is that compared to the shiny-prettiness of the previous covers (seriously, the things are gorgeous) LAoK was kinda ugly, and I really disliked the font, very overdone. Also, can't look at the title without chuckling remembering the lame pun from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, "they will hear Reason" ;p
Storywise, I really liked the circlarity of the structure, and the length of the post-ending fall out and the bleak mediocrity of the end situation. Humour was present as before, and there were many cool one liners once more (expect icons when I'll get my own computer back). The plot itself is decent enough and tied all loose ends efficiently. No very big surprise, but the subversion of many elements kept working very well.
Character wise the results are uneven.
Ferro was sadly underexploited, hanging around there doing nothing until it was time for her to play her plot role and then disapear leaving a mild taste of WTF in the mouth. I really liked her last chapter though - that might be because I have a thing for crazy and extremely dangerous women.
Bayaz is an interesting case. I never liked nor trusted him in any way, yet the full revelation of what an utter bastard he is did surprise me efficiently. In terms of that wise mentor cliché subversion, he's an extremely successful character. At the same time, I never felt he reached 3D in terms of personnality. He doesn't live, he's remains an archetype if a subverted one. He's just that extremely manipulative and powerful, ruthless megalomaniac bastard, without even being a Magnifiscent one. (Mind you, he probably oughtn't get to be a magnifiscent bastard, Glokta's bad enough).
West. Great story. It's sad we see him so little at the ending, I'd especially have appreciating seing a bit of he and Ardee first front before that horrendously awesome whimper ending. Ouch.
Jeraz. I'm a bit on and off about Jeraz. He never reaches the part where his good intention actually get to any real kind of virtue rather than newfound glamourous idea of moral decency instead of his previous glamourous idea of valor. So I'm never actually convinced that he could actually have been a good, noble king or whatever if only he hadn't been terrorized by Bayaz, because, huh, you need more than glamourous good intentions to be that. Because of this I didn't find his ending arc worked very well. The way his wife's story was played more for laughter (if an horrific one) than anythig left a very bitter tase in my mouth.
Dogman, had a good story, his interaction with Logen especially were awesome. Like with West, though, it felt like we left him too early.
Glokta was faithful to him up to the end, both in his utter ruthlessness and his occasionnal pity, an excellently depicted character, and clearly one of the writer's favourite ^^ Like everyone else, Glokta doesn't get his happy ending, since he didn't got to get killed XD yet Glokta gets the girl, one thing that's very failed subversion and finishes to intrusmentalize Ardee in a fashion I'm unhappy with.
I'm rather curious about what Glokta can become with the political power, depending on how much freedom Bayaz may leave him. Depending on where the wind blows, he could be better than half bad, or he could be deeply horrific...
I liked Glokta getting betrayed by both Practical (Alas, poor Severard, who will feed your pigeons ;_;) and that it did hurt him.
I was very happy that Vitari, at least, got her happy ending :)
Logen's the other character who really, really shines, the progressive revealing of, yes, what an utter bastard he is. Reading the book, I was still quite under his glamour, and it was only when hitting board discussions I realised how much some people had come to see him as a bastard. Logen's "evilness" doesn't come from his berserker rage, it comes from continuing to place himself in positions when he has to use his berserker rage to survive. Having made himself into this ultimate weapon that is the Bloody Nine, he never manages to turn away from it and not use it. In this, Bayaz, Glokta, Ferro and Logen are all very similar, their willingness to use violence, radical violence with extreme results, to use it first, to use it so as to prevent any chance of later repercussion comes to define them. At the same time, Logen remains someone sympathetic to me.
FWIW, I count him as dead at the ending.
Black Dow, pwned. Start to finish. I'm glad he was one the few of the Logen's band to survive. He's quite the bastard, but he's a honest one.
I find myself wanting to compare this serie to two others.
One is KJ Parker's Scavenger trilogy a writer which I already mentionned as similar in tone and style to Abercrombie's. In Scavenger especially, the main character Poldarn has a lot of similarities with Logen, in having a past reputation for being the biggest son of a bitch on earth, trying to actually be a half-way decent person, and, through a combination of fate, their own survival instinct and ability with violence; being an utter failure as such. Both are also similar in bleakness, grim humour, and dark ending. The First Law is more shitty brown grey finish, while Scavenger's got a rotting black grey ending. Scavenger was also better about all mystical elements, with some excellent horror elements, but The First Law wins as far as the cast of characters go.
The other Jacqueline Carey's Sundering duology, which is wildly different in tone and style from The First Law, but has a similar iconoclast attitude to fantasy clichés. The Sundering is much more Tolkienist, deals much more with High fantasy where The First Law reminds of David Eddings as much as of LotR clichés, and The Sundering tries to deconstruct those clichés while keeping a lyrical tone, by trying to emphasize the "villains"'s goodness rather than emphasizing the "good guys"'s evilness. I think the Sundering was more of a failure compared to The First Law, mainly because it was too unsurprizing in the end and kinda fizzled out, and kinda because it remained too classical in its approach.
Since Gritty Fantasy has now become its own genre, with its own brands of expectations I find myself hoping that further fantasy works will be as much about constructing new ideas and tropes rather than merely continuing beating the dead horse, though.
Overall a good book, and a great conclusion to the series, definitly on par with the quality of Before They Are Hanged. There were a few details on which the book was less strong, or which disapointed me, but he reading itself was delightful, and the series is definitly thought inducing.
First flaw is that compared to the shiny-prettiness of the previous covers (seriously, the things are gorgeous) LAoK was kinda ugly, and I really disliked the font, very overdone. Also, can't look at the title without chuckling remembering the lame pun from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, "they will hear Reason" ;p
Storywise, I really liked the circlarity of the structure, and the length of the post-ending fall out and the bleak mediocrity of the end situation. Humour was present as before, and there were many cool one liners once more (expect icons when I'll get my own computer back). The plot itself is decent enough and tied all loose ends efficiently. No very big surprise, but the subversion of many elements kept working very well.
Character wise the results are uneven.
Ferro was sadly underexploited, hanging around there doing nothing until it was time for her to play her plot role and then disapear leaving a mild taste of WTF in the mouth. I really liked her last chapter though - that might be because I have a thing for crazy and extremely dangerous women.
Bayaz is an interesting case. I never liked nor trusted him in any way, yet the full revelation of what an utter bastard he is did surprise me efficiently. In terms of that wise mentor cliché subversion, he's an extremely successful character. At the same time, I never felt he reached 3D in terms of personnality. He doesn't live, he's remains an archetype if a subverted one. He's just that extremely manipulative and powerful, ruthless megalomaniac bastard, without even being a Magnifiscent one. (Mind you, he probably oughtn't get to be a magnifiscent bastard, Glokta's bad enough).
West. Great story. It's sad we see him so little at the ending, I'd especially have appreciating seing a bit of he and Ardee first front before that horrendously awesome whimper ending. Ouch.
Jeraz. I'm a bit on and off about Jeraz. He never reaches the part where his good intention actually get to any real kind of virtue rather than newfound glamourous idea of moral decency instead of his previous glamourous idea of valor. So I'm never actually convinced that he could actually have been a good, noble king or whatever if only he hadn't been terrorized by Bayaz, because, huh, you need more than glamourous good intentions to be that. Because of this I didn't find his ending arc worked very well. The way his wife's story was played more for laughter (if an horrific one) than anythig left a very bitter tase in my mouth.
Dogman, had a good story, his interaction with Logen especially were awesome. Like with West, though, it felt like we left him too early.
Glokta was faithful to him up to the end, both in his utter ruthlessness and his occasionnal pity, an excellently depicted character, and clearly one of the writer's favourite ^^ Like everyone else, Glokta doesn't get his happy ending, since he didn't got to get killed XD yet Glokta gets the girl, one thing that's very failed subversion and finishes to intrusmentalize Ardee in a fashion I'm unhappy with.
I'm rather curious about what Glokta can become with the political power, depending on how much freedom Bayaz may leave him. Depending on where the wind blows, he could be better than half bad, or he could be deeply horrific...
I liked Glokta getting betrayed by both Practical (Alas, poor Severard, who will feed your pigeons ;_;) and that it did hurt him.
I was very happy that Vitari, at least, got her happy ending :)
Logen's the other character who really, really shines, the progressive revealing of, yes, what an utter bastard he is. Reading the book, I was still quite under his glamour, and it was only when hitting board discussions I realised how much some people had come to see him as a bastard. Logen's "evilness" doesn't come from his berserker rage, it comes from continuing to place himself in positions when he has to use his berserker rage to survive. Having made himself into this ultimate weapon that is the Bloody Nine, he never manages to turn away from it and not use it. In this, Bayaz, Glokta, Ferro and Logen are all very similar, their willingness to use violence, radical violence with extreme results, to use it first, to use it so as to prevent any chance of later repercussion comes to define them. At the same time, Logen remains someone sympathetic to me.
FWIW, I count him as dead at the ending.
Black Dow, pwned. Start to finish. I'm glad he was one the few of the Logen's band to survive. He's quite the bastard, but he's a honest one.
I find myself wanting to compare this serie to two others.
One is KJ Parker's Scavenger trilogy a writer which I already mentionned as similar in tone and style to Abercrombie's. In Scavenger especially, the main character Poldarn has a lot of similarities with Logen, in having a past reputation for being the biggest son of a bitch on earth, trying to actually be a half-way decent person, and, through a combination of fate, their own survival instinct and ability with violence; being an utter failure as such. Both are also similar in bleakness, grim humour, and dark ending. The First Law is more shitty brown grey finish, while Scavenger's got a rotting black grey ending. Scavenger was also better about all mystical elements, with some excellent horror elements, but The First Law wins as far as the cast of characters go.
The other Jacqueline Carey's Sundering duology, which is wildly different in tone and style from The First Law, but has a similar iconoclast attitude to fantasy clichés. The Sundering is much more Tolkienist, deals much more with High fantasy where The First Law reminds of David Eddings as much as of LotR clichés, and The Sundering tries to deconstruct those clichés while keeping a lyrical tone, by trying to emphasize the "villains"'s goodness rather than emphasizing the "good guys"'s evilness. I think the Sundering was more of a failure compared to The First Law, mainly because it was too unsurprizing in the end and kinda fizzled out, and kinda because it remained too classical in its approach.
Since Gritty Fantasy has now become its own genre, with its own brands of expectations I find myself hoping that further fantasy works will be as much about constructing new ideas and tropes rather than merely continuing beating the dead horse, though.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 14 May 2008 05:34 pm (UTC)I haven't read Snow Crash but that pun reminded me of Terry Brooks' horrid pun in his Magic Kingdom For Sale - Sold! where the king names his horse "Jurisdiction". So that no matter where he rides, he has.... badum-ching.
no subject
Date: 14 May 2008 09:52 pm (UTC)Puns are why I never tried reading Douglas Adams, Piers Anthony or even Pratchet in english. No, sir, always translation. (I love your icon, but only 'cause i'm drunk right now)
no subject
Date: 15 May 2008 12:05 am (UTC)Jurisdiction is legal authority. A police officer can't arrest someone if said person is out of his/her jurisdiction (a Pennsylvanian cop can't arrest someone in, say, New Jersey). So, the king names his horse Jurisdiction, so the pun arises from the fact that no matter where he goes, he has legal authority. The king in the story is originally a lawyer, so he thinks his pun is pretty funny. No one else does. XD
no subject
Date: 15 May 2008 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 April 2010 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 20 April 2010 02:17 pm (UTC)