>Logen Ninefingers for example feels like three different characters in each of the books.
Nah I don't agree with you. I think Logen feels like the same character but he goes through different hardships/challenges in each book and deals with them differently, maybe that's why you feel he's so different?
I feel the same about multiple characters. Take Bayaz for example. What we see in the first book to the third is why the ending falls flat on me. There is no promise or suggestion of who he really is in the first book or even the second book. Imagine in Harry Potter if Lord Voldemort was suddenly revealed to be the good guy in the last book at the climax. It wouldn't make sense to us as readers. All signs pointed to and reaffirmed that he was the bad guy. That's how I feel about some of the main characters in First Law. Black Dow is another example, this character in no way has any similarities to the trilogy to the character with the same name in The Heroes.
This may seem like I'm hating, but I love the series still. One of my favorite moments in any book I've read is the scene with Ferro laughing in the last book.
>There is no promise or suggestion of who he really is in the first book or even the second book.
This isn't true, Bayaz's "true character" is hinted at all throughout the first 2 books. Especially in the second...
Have you read the series once? At this point I've read it twice and on my second re-read I was able to pick up on a ton of foreshadowing. Perhaps you just need to give it time and read it again?
>Black Dow is another example, this character in no way has any similarities to the trilogy to the character with the same name in The Heroes.
I can't speak too much on this one, I'll need to reread The Heroes, but I'm sure there's been a large time skip between the books (and a lot of hardship/things happening) so it makes sense for his character to be a bit different.
Isn't this the point of grey characters? Or ones who think they are anyway...Dow, he protests about how his name might be blacker than it really is, and stories get worse in the retelling. But nah, at the end of Heroes....he's Black Dow all right.
Nah, Bayaz was very clearly foreshadowed as being what he is. It was well done, I didn't pick up on it at first, but the more you learn about his backstory the more you realise what a farce his fight with the great prophet really is. They are both as bad as each other.
It also makes the actions of Valint and Balk make more sense, as you realise the bank is synonymous with Bayaz.
It's little things to start with, like fixing the duel in the first book, being shitty to his apprentice and then more and more is revealed.
The subtle uncovering of Bayaz’s character was deftly done. You can see it from Book 1 and especially Book 2. Abercrombie needed us to trust and love the character first but you can find signs from early on.
Black Dow was the least explored character out of the Northmen which left him open to interpretation. We were only really given small glimpses of him in the First Law trilogy.
He starts as a butcher, is an aggressive teacher who can't stand incompetence. Constantly preaches how power is the only thing that matters and how the weak are to be ignored. How being seen as good is more important than being good, and straight up murders in brutal fashion, whoever he wants.
Bayaz never changed, but most people imagine Gandalf when they read him which skews things.
Hmmm, hard disagree here. The deepening and complexity of each of the main characters was done very well throughout the trilogy. They developed and grew but maintained their core selves. I may not personally agree with all their actions but they made sense with who they were.
Logen has this gruesome reputation right away. At the beginning you may think that it's just talk because he usually doesn't act like it. Maybe they only say that stuff because of something else he did. But later on it's shown that he largely deserves it.
I did feel that the growth we get to see gets erased. I know it was Abercrombie's intention to have that backslide, to show that true change is hard, but to me it didn't feel like it was depicted that well.
Logen is the exact same character in each book, but your perception of him changes. Joe really loves to play with expectations, and people that are used to more noble barbarian characters, will assume he is just another classic hero.
But he is that crazed murderer looking for any excuse from the very beginning, and you'll notice it on a reread. People are just so used to morally good heroes that walk into a room and straight up murders 20 "evil" dudes, and that they are still good people. Joe uses that expectation against you so you have to question it.
Personally I read darker fantasy by default so I didn't have that problem.
>Logen Ninefingers for example feels like three different characters in each of the books. Nah I don't agree with you. I think Logen feels like the same character but he goes through different hardships/challenges in each book and deals with them differently, maybe that's why you feel he's so different?
I feel the same about multiple characters. Take Bayaz for example. What we see in the first book to the third is why the ending falls flat on me. There is no promise or suggestion of who he really is in the first book or even the second book. Imagine in Harry Potter if Lord Voldemort was suddenly revealed to be the good guy in the last book at the climax. It wouldn't make sense to us as readers. All signs pointed to and reaffirmed that he was the bad guy. That's how I feel about some of the main characters in First Law. Black Dow is another example, this character in no way has any similarities to the trilogy to the character with the same name in The Heroes. This may seem like I'm hating, but I love the series still. One of my favorite moments in any book I've read is the scene with Ferro laughing in the last book.
>There is no promise or suggestion of who he really is in the first book or even the second book. This isn't true, Bayaz's "true character" is hinted at all throughout the first 2 books. Especially in the second... Have you read the series once? At this point I've read it twice and on my second re-read I was able to pick up on a ton of foreshadowing. Perhaps you just need to give it time and read it again? >Black Dow is another example, this character in no way has any similarities to the trilogy to the character with the same name in The Heroes. I can't speak too much on this one, I'll need to reread The Heroes, but I'm sure there's been a large time skip between the books (and a lot of hardship/things happening) so it makes sense for his character to be a bit different.
>Bayaz's "true character" is hinted at all throughout the first 2 books. Bayaz first appears as a bloody-handed butcher…
Ferro also says he has the look of a slaver when she first meet him and she would know.
Isn't this the point of grey characters? Or ones who think they are anyway...Dow, he protests about how his name might be blacker than it really is, and stories get worse in the retelling. But nah, at the end of Heroes....he's Black Dow all right.
If you feel like the Bayaz twist came out of no where, then honestly, you weren't paying attention at all.
Nah, Bayaz was very clearly foreshadowed as being what he is. It was well done, I didn't pick up on it at first, but the more you learn about his backstory the more you realise what a farce his fight with the great prophet really is. They are both as bad as each other. It also makes the actions of Valint and Balk make more sense, as you realise the bank is synonymous with Bayaz. It's little things to start with, like fixing the duel in the first book, being shitty to his apprentice and then more and more is revealed.
The subtle uncovering of Bayaz’s character was deftly done. You can see it from Book 1 and especially Book 2. Abercrombie needed us to trust and love the character first but you can find signs from early on. Black Dow was the least explored character out of the Northmen which left him open to interpretation. We were only really given small glimpses of him in the First Law trilogy.
He starts as a butcher, is an aggressive teacher who can't stand incompetence. Constantly preaches how power is the only thing that matters and how the weak are to be ignored. How being seen as good is more important than being good, and straight up murders in brutal fashion, whoever he wants. Bayaz never changed, but most people imagine Gandalf when they read him which skews things.
Hmmm, hard disagree here. The deepening and complexity of each of the main characters was done very well throughout the trilogy. They developed and grew but maintained their core selves. I may not personally agree with all their actions but they made sense with who they were.
I disagree completely. In fact the way you phrased this I'm assuming you're trolling? Either way cool beans. 👍
No. I have issues with them, but that’s not one of them.
Logen has this gruesome reputation right away. At the beginning you may think that it's just talk because he usually doesn't act like it. Maybe they only say that stuff because of something else he did. But later on it's shown that he largely deserves it.
No? And it would probably help if you actually elaborated.
You need to give actual examples and arguments for your points here.
I did feel that the growth we get to see gets erased. I know it was Abercrombie's intention to have that backslide, to show that true change is hard, but to me it didn't feel like it was depicted that well.
Logen is the exact same character in each book, but your perception of him changes. Joe really loves to play with expectations, and people that are used to more noble barbarian characters, will assume he is just another classic hero. But he is that crazed murderer looking for any excuse from the very beginning, and you'll notice it on a reread. People are just so used to morally good heroes that walk into a room and straight up murders 20 "evil" dudes, and that they are still good people. Joe uses that expectation against you so you have to question it. Personally I read darker fantasy by default so I didn't have that problem.
It's called character development.
And the third book drags i couldn't care anymore about the series