**(Obviously there will be story spoilers below)**
As I understand it, the First Law trilogy is widely regarded as an incredible trilogy through which fantasy tropes are turned on their heads, where everything you see is not as it seems, and everything you least expect is what happens. The noble swordsman is a selfish prick. The main female lead is not soft and kind, but rather a feral and vicious warrior with no mercy. The once war-hero is now a cripple of a man, and a sadist. The wisely wizard turns out to be the worst of them all. And the most reasonable of them is a split-personality barbarian who’s as likely at times to kill his friends as his enemies.
I want to open by saying the prose itself is actually written well, and I had a lot of enjoyment over the incredible spars of dialogue and inner monologue characters had with each other and themselves. Abercrombie is exceptionally clever when it comes to games of wits between characters, and reading those bits throughout the books were always where I had the most enjoyment.
**But.**
Where the books fall apart for me is the story and its development. In the beginning, we’re given a set of characters and the establishment of the general plot; the Union is threatened by the south, bad guy Bethod in the north is also making trouble, and the wizard wants to get some people together to stop it somehow. Cool.
But there’s very little to actually *move* the plot. The first book ends without any kind of proper conclusion, the second book is an entire waste of the characters’ time as it results in nothing more than a goose chase. By the time we get to the third book, we finally see where things are going—but it’s only to destroy any ounce of development for their arc these characters have had:
• Jezal starts as a selfish prick with talent for swords, he ends as a puppet king who leaves Ardee behind and is married to a lesbian queen who hates him for being a commoner, and is ultimately, as Bayaz says, a coward
• Logen is initially portrayed as a reasonable man prone to bouts of rage and bloodlust. He ends as a worse and slightly less reasonable man prone to bouts of rage and bloodlust after giving up on self-improvement and being betrayed by someone he once called a friend
• Glokta goes from intermittently wondering why he tortures people to fully abandoning his mercy and enjoying the torment of others, as well as raping Terez by proxy by forcing her to fuck Jezal and become pregnant with four children or he’ll torture her childhood friend and lover endlessly
• Ferro, a feral and vicious woman with no mercy, stays a feral and vicious woman who, in addition to still having no mercy, now seems to need some flex-tape for the holes in her brain to keep the fuckin’ demons from gettin’ out
• Bayaz, already a warped trope as a grounded wizard with a short temper and little patience, ends up being fantasy-hitler and nuking an entire city, as well as being just as bad if not worse than Khalul
• West, who was the only one who seemed (in spite of his faults) to actually be going somewhere with his arc, gets magic cancer
Not one character ends up better than they started out. Not in a literal “well hey, they live in a bigger palace/have a better job” way, but in a manner of character development. All of them actually *regress* as characters, aside from *maybe* Jezal who, for as little development as he gets, is unable to act on any of it without the threat of Bayaz coming back and curb-stomping his teeth in.
How is this some pinnacle of fantastic writing? People seem to praise its message that sometimes there is no hope and things are terrible regardless. But to me, the message that “bad shit happens to good people, good shit happens to bad people, everything sucks and no one can do anything about it, so stop trying, fuck you” isn’t some intellectually profound revelation, that’s just something pretty much everyone has already taken for granted about the real world.
Not to mention, that kind of writing/message is unbearably boring if, like me, you’re waiting for an actual *plot* to happen rather than reading about people and their misfortunes for thousands of pages so the book can beat you over the head with the idea of “stop expecting anything good to happen to anyone who deserves it”. If I want to consume media about needless and mindless suffering, I’ll throw on a Saw film. If you know everyone is going to end up worse than where they started, it takes out any kind of stakes or investment for me because I’ll simply stop caring about the characters—which is exactly what happened after about the first couple hundred pages I read of the third book.
And after all of this, I still don’t know what exactly the other side *is,* what the demons do or want other than coming into the real world, what relevance the shanka had to the story other than being used as Bethod’s fodder, how the fuck “the Art” even works or how non-magi like Caurib get to learn/use it, and a dozen other little things that I doubt I’ll get the answer to because the end of “The Last Argument of Kings” has put such a bad taste in my mouth that I have zero desire to read anything else of the series/world.
Am I missing something important? Happy to discuss and hopefully be persuaded that I’ve got it wrong, because I really don’t want to think that the whole trilogy amounted to essentially “the bad guy wins, everyone sucks, GG.”
EDIT: Minor spelling
by matteoarts
45 Comments
I’ve never seen anyone articulate exactly my complaints about this story better. I totally agree, and I do NOT understand why people say Joe Abercrombie is a visionary or whatever for writing such a bummer of a series.
Well-written critique of the series, I can’t convince you to like it especially as you so eloquently explain why you dislike it.
For me (at 58 years old) I have read so much fantasy and sci-fi over the years that always ends with almost everyone miraculously having happy endings, the bad guys get what’s coming to them, and there are no loose ends. A few examples … The Martian, The Bobiverse Series, The Way of Kings, Priory of the Orange Tree, Reamde… in those books some “good” people die but it usually is noble and achieves something important. So I guess Abercrombie (for me) hits that part of me that is getting tired of the almost unparalleled success that the good guys always achieve.
Having said that, the whole journey to the other side of the world (other than the excellent battles) did seem wasteful and was plenty boring in parts.
100% agree. I think Abercrombie is a talented author, but his work doesn’t appeal to me. The enjoyment of upending tropes is offset by your points above
>Not one character ends up better than they started out. Not in a literal “well hey, they live in a bigger palace/have a better job” way, but in a manner of character development. All of them actually regress as characters, aside from maybe Jezal who, for as little development as he gets, is unable to act on any of it without the threat of Bayaz coming back and curb-stomping his teeth in.
Have you ever stop to consider that this was by design and not out of lack of skill in Abercrombie’s part?
Character arcs do not need to be a upwards (or even downwards) trend. People can change a little bit, but they still remain what they are. They have multiple facets that are highlighted or muted depending on their environment and those around them.
Logan is a great example of this. We sympathize with him because he’s charismatic and we experience thing from his POV. But once you start to know more of him and how he behaved in the north, you see who he truly was. His main catchphrase “You have to be realistic about things”, starts out as a piece of wisdom and wit, but in the end, it shows how defeatist it is. Logan isn’t truly willing to change, that’s why the realistic for him is accept that the bloodlust will always be there.
>How is this some pinnacle of fantastic writing? People seem to praise its message that sometimes there is no hope and things are terrible regardless. But to me, the message that “bad shit happens to good people, good shit happens to bad people, everything sucks and no one can do anything about it, so stop trying, fuck you” isn’t some intellectually profound revelation, that’s just something pretty much everyone has already taken for granted about the real world.
Because Abercrombie can write incredibly compelling characters, in a complex world (even though it isn’t heavy on the worldbuilding) and they offer outcomes of situations that are closer to how things are. The characters are elements within the system and there’s only so much they can change even when they have power. Lots of fantasy story gloss over that part even they are trying to be realistic and grim.
>Not to mention, that kind of writing/message is unbearably boring if, like me, you’re waiting for an actual plot to happen rather than reading about people and their misfortunes for thousands of pages so the book can beat you over the head with the idea of “stop expecting anything good to happen to anyone who deserves it”.
Well, book 1 has very little plot, which doesn’t detract even a single thing from the masterpiece that it is. Character-driven stories are a thing, you know? However, even in book 1, the plot is already happening, we’re just not aware of it on a first read, but once you finish the trilogy, you realize many elements were already there.
Anyway, Abercrombie is one of the best fantasy writer that have ever lived because he can write incredibly layered and nuanced characters that are compelling despite the author pretty much starting from the most unlikable points you could chose for a character and he will still make you sympathize with them. That’s on top of pretty good plotting, godlike prose that is beautiful, effective and incredibly funny.
Overall, despite this “review” being quite well put together, I feel like that it ultimately shows more that “grimdark” stories are not your preference, rather than any kind of criticism on the quality of Abercrombie’s work. You may not like the style of stories he tells, but no one can deny that he accomplishes masterfully what he sets out to do, and that’s as much as we can expect from any piece of media.
I get that it’s grimdark so it’s going to have an unhappy ending, but basically all the character development gets tossed out the window in the last chapter. It was very unsatisfying IMO.
The wheel never stops turning, Badger
As a person who enjoyed First Law, I agree with almost every point you made. If it could be any help, the second trilogy(Age of Madness) is an improvement over the first one in every aspect, especially plot.
I read them without knowing anything particular about the series, so I had no expectations going in. I definitely agree that the plot was loose and not particularly compelling, but I ended up feeling like what I enjoyed about the series was the journey, not the destination: I enjoyed the way he wrote, his prose, the characterization, original descriptions, lively dialogue, etc. That was enough for me to outweigh the plot holes and meh ending. I’m glad I read the books; I don’t feel the need to reread them.
Can’t disagree with any of this.
It took me a couple of tries to get through the first book, as nothing happens for several hundred pages, though it does pick up near the end.
The second book was my favorite. While it doesn’t move the story forward much, it had the most interesting character development and interactions.
The third book is where things “happen”, but it was actually my least favorite as it gets rather repetitive with the endless battle scenes.
Ultimately I’m glad I read the trilogy but I don’t feel moved to read anything more in this world, even though I know there is (much) more.
Pretty valid critique, honestly. I liked the series, but it did feel a little contrived that NONE of the main characters ended up different or even slightly content. Once you realize nothings going to turn out right & no ones going to be happy it’s hard to stay invested.
I did think the sequel trilogy (Age of Madness) was a lot better. Some decent character arcs, a tighter plot & the prose and characters were even better imo.
I enjoyed your review. I read all three books and, like you, enjoyed aspects of the series. Especially the discourse and inner-monologue of the characters. But I too came away from the series thinking “it wasn’t quite enough” – despite the fact that he did get me invested in some of the characters.
In the end, I think the crux of this is how much you enjoy the Grimdark thing. I think for me, I can enjoy it as a style of storytelling, but not being the central point of the book.
I’m highly reluctant to call in “style over substance” since there is plenty of substance. But it’s very much an exercise in “look how far it can take this worldview” – as a juxtaposition of traditional story arcs.
Personally, I think if this were a space opera, you like to see the “wonder” of space be front and centre. And for fans of Grimdark fantasy that’s a vital aspect – that these stories hit the brief. But for me I think prefer there to be a plot that feels like it was a story worth telling.
Attempting to show things to be so grim and dark to the extent that everyone and everything ends up exactly where they began left me somewhat empty…
Come to think of it, maybe that’s the whole point and this Abercrombie IS a genius…. But not for me.
I mean, I didn’t go into it with the same expectations you had, I had just heard it was a character driven darker fantasy, which is good enough for me. As for the “fuck you, everything sucks” morality of it, I kind of liked that aspect? Not everything should have a happy ending.
Great review…very much appreciated 🙏
Well-written critique!
I agree with most of your points. To me, it felt like a chore to get through long portions of the series. I’d go a step further and say the dialogue is often poorly written. I found a lot of it to be corny, and not particularly witty.
Overall, I’d give the series a 6 out of 10. Not awful, but I really don’t understand how it gets all the praise that it does.
I went in blind and it personally blew me away and felt it very unique take on the classic fantasy journey. Different strokes different folks
Definitely some valid critiques, but I still love the series.
Would be curious to see how you like the stand alone novels, as I think they’re all better than the first trilogy.
Yeah, I didn’t see anything super groundbreaking. I finished the first book, got a few hundred pages into the second, and was bored to tears. There’s only so many ways I can see static characters suffer better I think “okay got it, everything is dogshit” and move on. Some plot would’ve been nice at some point.
I read the First Law books way back when the trilogy had just finished, but I remember thinking after I was done that it felt like the series had just wasted my time. None of the characters were better off or even really that different, unless it was a negative development, and the stuff I actually wanted to know about like the Maker and the Eaters got so little page time that it just wasn’t worth slogging through the rest of the books. At the end of the day I’d rather read a fantasy series that embraces the genre whole-heartedly, even if it doesn’t have much to make it stand out, than read something that just makes wonder why I should care about any of these people.
I remember being so confused that there wasn’t a fourth book.
Okay hear me out – although you didn’t like the first 1500 pages of the series, why don’t you read the remaining 3000 pages of the series, which gets better because Abercrombie as a writer gets better?
Fair points, though personally I can’t say there’s been a fantasy author I’ve enjoyed just reading more in recent years.
I felt the same at the end of the first trilogy but found the standalone books to be way better.
The plot in the first book had alway bugged me and made me not want to recommend the series as an initial starting point for abercrombie’s work. I wouldn’t say there was no plot. The characters all have there personal goals and for the most part succeed in all of them. But on the path there they ether change or someone steps in to control the situation. Normally I am not all in on downward roller-coaster stories, i gave up on breaking bad for much the same reason. However for me this balance hit the sweet spot between success stories and tragedy
I liked it. I don’t usually read that kind of book, but I read the whole trilogy.
You almost made me dislike Glokta. Almost.
OP it took me 9 books to come to the same conclusion that you came to. And in all that time the message never changed and the plot never ended up anywhere.
Great write up. I personally love the characters and the world but fully agree the plot element in the first trilogy is average. It was the great prose and character work that kept me hooked even through the slog of traveling through the Old Empire.
However the stand-alones after the trilogy are that amazing step up you want. Clear genre and plot elements, from Best Served Cold (my favourite revenge story after The Count of Monte Cristo) to The Heroes and finally Red Country, they all are very distinct and take the best of their POV characters into a clear plot structure.
If you want a revenge fic go for Best Served Cold. A hardened war story see The Heroes. A new frontier western battling one’s inner demons see Red Country. Their endings are all most complete, have clear plot arcs and captivate me with Abercrombie’s story phenomenal character work.
I agree with there he lacks in plot. But the rest of his craft improves immensely as the First Law world goes on that I cannot recommend the next stories enough. Great review as well. Always nice to hear clear analysis.
The idea that people don’t change and stay shitty very much fits in with Abercrombie’s cynical grimdark approach so none of this was a surprise to me.
I think the main fantasy trope that The First Law subverts is *Wish Fulfillment*
We usually escape to fantasy for things that can’t happen in real life—like the good guys winning and all being right with the world in the end. But for those who’ve read many stories like that, and feeling frustrated that the threads can never connect to our real life, I think it can be nice to see some heroes do their best, with the best intentions, and still lose in the end. Ya know? I feel like fantasy usually tells me that everything will work out, and that’s good to feel. But if I take it for granted, will I try my best?
I had the exact same reaction to reading the series, was hugely disappointed considering how enthusiastically a friend whose taste I hold in high esteem recommended the series to me.
While I don’t expect fantasy series to be uplifting, or necessarily have some overarching message, the cynical and fatalistic second half of the third book only enhanced the hurrying up and going no-where quality that the whole series had.
My take for the whole thing is that Abercrombie is a master of character sketches, but couldn’t sustain a work of the scale he set himself to, painted himself into a corner, and just slammed the story into the fatalistic ‘wall’ without adequate setup for it.
I have been stuck in the second book for a couple of months already. Absolutely no drive to keep reading, picked it up a couple weeks ago and I am distracted yet again. I will probably finish the trilogy, but I am not sure about the other 3 books. They seem like a slog to be honest and Abercrombie himself seems like an arrogant prick when I see him in interviews, so why read his stuff?
I am starting to distrust Booktoobers because very rarely is something they rave about really worth it to be honest.
Enjoyed the series but agree it is way overrated. Felt less realistic and more edgy to be edgy, frankly.
I think the author succeeded very well at what he set out to do, it is just that he is doing something you do not like.
Take for example the second book – the search for the maguffin that ends up being a total waste of time for the characters … on the surface. *That’s a large part of the point*. In fantasy novels, you *expect* that the maguffin will be meaningful and useful (and indeed, many such novels are nothing more than extended maguffin-hunts: find the three magic keys, defeat the emperor, that sort of thing). The author is having some fun with that expectation. The “progress” made by the characters is entirely in terms of their own development; which isn’t insignificant.
The reader either enjoys such subversions of expectations, or they don’t. It’s probably more fun if you are used to other fantasy novels; it’s at least in part a deconstructive parody of fantasy as a genre.
Your mistake is thinking there’s supposed to be this Aha! moment where there’s some kind of moral, and it all gets tied up in a bow. That’s not how the story works, because that’s not how things work out in reality. It’s funny how people talk all about genre-subversion in reference to Bayaz & Jezal, but then expect the story to be a moralistic tale or something. Journey over destination, my friend.
People think Joe Abercrombie writes grimdark books, when he really just writes flawed characters in a flawed world, much like our own.
That’s a pretty good critique. While I liked the series I think you have some food points.
For me however, one of the themes I took away from the series is that people can’t really change. Sometimes you just have to live with your nature.
Jezal can try to be noble, but there’s always a bigger fish who’ll grind him down. Logen can try to be a better man, but the bloody nine will always be there, inciting violence. People don’t really change, though they can try.
Also the world is a brutal place, ready to kick you in the teeth if you aren’t on the lookout.
Yeaaah I totally get what you mean. I found book 1 & 2 really fun when I viewed it through the lens of a grimdark parody of traditional fantasy but the end of the trilogy just felt so…ehhhh? Characters becoming worse versions of themselves can be fascinating but I lost interest when they just lost any and all agency over their fate. Let’s nor even get into the magic cancer.
Jezel’s storyline was just kind of miserable and Farro…my girl deserved so much better. She was barely in the final book it feels like and she was my fave from book 2 besides Logan. His end was my favorite though I gotta say, it felt clear to me he couldn’t turn over a new leaf unless he exorcised whatever is making him turn into the Bloody Nine so I thought the cyclicality of it all was a clever reflection of that. Same for Glokta; he’s stopped making excuses for his behavior and embraced being himself, to the detriment of literally everyone else lol. Funny AND satisfying.
I didn’t love it either. I just feel like the bar in fantasy is sometimes too low. This series has no plot. I literally had 3-4 hours left in my audiobook and i left it because i just forgot about it.
That is not a good sign, if a book doesn’t compel me enough to finish it.
I found it to be a very mediocre series, and it felt like all Abercrombie wanted to do was like…”Look! Nothing improves, there is no plot, and the chracters aren’t all good/evil…isn’t that unique??? Huh? Huh???”
It is surprising that this series is so highly regarded. But then again, i feel that about a lot of books in fantasy.
I really enjoyed the character arcs being mostly a circle, it was new to me
First of all, you make valid points and your opinion is legitimate, so don’t let anyone make you read something you don’t enjoy.
HOWEVER
1. The enjoyment of this series, for me, was the naturalistic character progression. You see this mostly in film, sometime is theatre, but not often in literature. The goal is the same as realism, but, I’m stealing this quote from a [good article](https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/naturalism-vs-realism-art), “more realer.” As much as we like to use “trope” and “cliché” as bad words, they are comforting and we look for them in all our stories. Do they exist in nature? Sure, sometimes. But do we also sometimes wait for a hero who never comes? Definitely. Seeing these characters progress into who-knows-what touches a very real nerve, which is, quite frankly, unnerving.
2. Joe Abercrombie is a screen writer. That influence definitely impacts the storytelling as well as the technical writing.
3. The LANGUAGE. In “On Writing,” King talks about a conversation with Amy Tan where she laments how few critics and interviewers ask them about the language. My first time through LOTR was like this. I had to enjoy the pages and pages of prose simply because they were beautifully written until I understood the story. The way Abercrombie writes so fluidly from one POV to another is enjoyable in itself.
Anyway, those are my reasons for enjoying the series, but they don’t have to be yours.
I think that most of the point is that sometimes people dont change. Joe Abercrombie did something incredible when he took a character that I loved like Logan and made me hate him. The first two books were told that hes a bad guy and a monster and as a reader you dont fully believe him and then in book three you see exactly what he used to be and it still makes me a little ill. Logan ends the book in the exact way he begins the trilogy because he keeps making the same decisions that lead him to becoming the same person. When he joins Bayez and tells him “You make the decisions for me, i dont wanna decide anything anymore” is just him letting another person take advantage of him and not taking any respondsibility for his own actions.
Also I kept expecting Khalul to show up in the third book like many different fantasy books ive read. But suprise Bayez is the real villian of the trilogy, Khalul doesn’t show up cause he’s not the one you should be worried about.
Were you upset about West? So is everyone else. Joe needed to make there some real consequences for Bayez nuking the Agriont and west perfectly encapsulated how life isnt fair and even people with so much potential can be wiped out for seemingly no reason.
Will agree book two was a big of a goose chase. Felt like it was kinda the point that they go on this grand adventure and it turns out to all be pointless. Agree that it could have been more interesting.
My main issue with the trilogy is much simpler. All the characters are pretty much unpleasant people and everything is depressing. I mean, it’s grimdark, I get that that’s the point, but I don’t enjoy reading it. I find it hard to give a shit about shitty people doing shitty things.
I personally loved it very much. Enjoyed the characters. The older I get the less I care about the plot going somewhere. I like characters put in interesting situations and see what happens. Read for the reading. Plot-driven stuff can also be nice, but it is not necessary for me to enjoy reading well-written prose.
People are being way too kind to you in this thread.
> How is this some pinnacle of fantastic writing? People seem to praise its message that sometimes there is no hope and things are terrible regardless. But to me, the message that “bad shit happens to good people, good shit happens to bad people, everything sucks and no one can do anything about it, so stop trying, fuck you” isn’t some intellectually profound revelation, that’s just something pretty much everyone has already taken for granted about the real world.
This is the biggest crock of shit I’ve ever seen and it’s incredibly revealing as to how narrow-minded a reader you are.
Firstly, it’s just flat out wrong about most people’s perceptions of the world. There are genuinely people, a LOT of people in the world, who believe in goodness and optimism to at least some extent. There are people who believe in kindness and tenderness towards strangers, who believe in the pursuit and success of justice against evil, who believe in the nobility of just combat against aggressors, who believe in the beauty and wonder of nature, who believe in the value of good work and the principal that if you do good you will receive good, who believe in the love of family and friends and the simple victory of creating a circle of people you care about who will usher you through life and into your death. There are people, SO MANY people, who believe in a just and loving God who is watching over you to help you live a good life. There are people who believe the world is good and people are good, fundamentally.
Is this a naive belief? To an extent, maybe. There are evils in the world, there are absurdities and injustices and senseless agonies all over the place for no reason. To say the world is completely good or that the evils of the world are not relevant would be inaccurate. But it is absolutely not true that most people believe that “bad shit happens to good people, good shit happens to bad people, everything sucks and no one can do anything about it, so stop trying, fuck you”. The fact that you’re a pessimist who gives special weight to the world’s ills doesn’t mean everybody is.
Secondly, it’s also massively reductive with respect to what purpose literature serves and what artistic value can be found in stories. Literature, fantasy especially, is often treated as just a vehicle for escapism where you can ignore the bad shit in the world and pretend everything is cool and magical and exciting. But that’s not the only thing fantasy deserves to be and it’s not the only thing worth writing about.
People in the Western world very seldomly experience real profound tragedy. We don’t get slaughtered *en masse* or die of malnutrition or disease without a care like in the most impoverished, wartorn, or ungoverned places in the world where crime and corruption are rampant. But those realities exist. Grim fantasy and grim literature can provide us a window into that world to confront the reality of it, get used to it, and refine our view of the world to be more nuanced and honest. Meanwhile, people who HAVE or DO live that reality can use the veil of fiction to process their own experiences in a safe, fictionalized, fantastical way, which can be therapeutic. The reality is, yeah, sometimes the world just sucks ass, but being able to experience that in a unique fashion has value.
The other thing is that subverting established genre practices is just good. Fantasy is so often a vehicle for heroism, big goodness, incredible victories and feats of superhuman power. It is so often a genre where people start from nothing or worse, and rise to greatness or improve as people. And that stuff is great, but it’s only one side of the coin of human experience. We need stories of tragedy, despair, and darkness to counterbalance and give voice to the thoughts and feelings that those stories encompass. We must accept both optimism and pessimism, joy and despair, to fully realize what it is like to be human and to see ourselves reflected in our art. First Law and other grimdark stories are valuable for being a window into that world of our experience and feelings, and not just kowtowing to the incredibly shallow circlejerk of fantasy escapism that compels us to ignore reality and throw tantrums when confronted with the least inconvenience.
Not everybody has to enjoy grimdark fiction, but this nonsense you’re peddling here where because something in literature is written to purposely be negative it therefore has no value and is artistically unimpressive or mundane is just ridiculous and a problem with you as a reader and potentially as a human being if it’s really that reflective of your view of the world itself.
I’m wholly on your side in this. I listened to the audio book and it is beyond disappointing that it is so good because I would love to go back and listen to it again but I can’t with the knowledge of where it all goes. I was pretty confused when the second book ended and we had gotten exactly no where besides a tenuous relationship between the crew. As the third book chugged on, I got increasingly worried about what was happening. After it became clear that Jezal wasn’t going to end up with Ardee I began looking at the wiki for how a couple story lines ended and got irreparably furious the deeper I went. I ended up stopping right after the “true heir to the throne” reveal and haven’t looked back.
I feel like the regression of the characters, the pointlessness of the quest, and the overall lack of “progress” for anyone other than Bayaz was kind of the entire point. Imagine someone sat down and wanted to write the “anti-adventure”. in a classic adventure story, a chosen one is part of a group assembled to assist with some grand quest/prophecy to fight a dark lord and save a kingdom/world. The heroes go forth, overcome adversity through the strength of their bond, save the day and presumably go on to live happily ever after. Abercrombie wrote a story that contradicts it beat for beat, which should have resulted in a boring, predictable slog of failure, but the fact that you didn’t know it was a perfect reversion of the classic adventure story until it was over meant you were still invested, and the characters sold that big time. For sure, if it didn’t land for you that’s fine. I just thought I’d contribute a point I hadn’t seen addressed yet.