|
In Last Argument of Kings: At the council of leaders after the battle of Adua, when Logen has come to terms with what he is. "Say one thing for Logen Ninefingers. Say he's a oval office." Succinct and sums up Logen's character, basically.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Abercrombie's fantastic at coming up with those little repeatable catchphrases for his characters without them sounding shoehorned in or fake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
I always liked "Still Alive" and how other characters started picking it up. Edit: I'm doing a re-read of The First Law and in The Blade Itself Dogman and the rest of Ninefingers crew had a place to meet up at if they got split up. It took them a month to get to this spot and meet up and the last time they were together was when the shanka attacked them and Ninefingers went over the cliff. So why didn't Ninefingers go there and see if any of his crew survived instead of assuming they were all dead, none of them assumed they died only Ninefingers who dogman watched go over a cliff. Clinton1011 fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jun 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
My favorite is "You have to be realistic about these things." Come to think of it, Logen is a catchphrase machine. Other characters not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Does Ferro's hissing count? My favourite after the famed "Say one thing for..." is more a bodily catch phrase, Dogman's weak bladder before a fight speaks a lot about a man regarded as one of the hardest in the North.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
That's a loving nice ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Finished Before They Are Hanged a moment ago. Loved it, going to the library to switch it out for Last Argument of Kings as soon as I wake up tomorrow. I'm really impressed with most of the characters - Logen is a badass, like pretty much all the northerners. Jezal is less annoying this go around. I was really hoping that Abercrobie had killed off Longfoot at that one part, he reminds me of Jar Jar Binks for some reason. Did it ever explain where he went? Also, holy poo poo, West. Glokta is also awesome - I can't really think of any other characters in fantasy that are all crippled and disgusting and poo poo. Also I was kind of shocked to find myself sympathizing with a torturer. Especially towards the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
What's his next project?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:What's his next project? Another trilogy in the same world and two more stand-alones I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:What's his next project? A stand-alone western themed one, then a trilogy I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:A stand-alone western themed one, then a trilogy I believe. This is true. He said he wanted to do three "genre" books in the universe he'd created before he gets to his next trilogy. So he did a revenge, Kill Bill type book. Then his war, Band of Brothers kind of book. Last up is his western. Yeah, then another trilogy. Hopefully Bayaz is going to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
A Nice Boy posted:This is true. Oh, so it's still going to be in his universe. I thought he meant a straight up Zane Grey style Wild West book. Any idea when it's coming out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
I picked up The Blade Itself about a month ago and enjoyed it. It was kind of a lighter, easy-reading fantasy compared to the Malazan books I recently finished. It didn't offer the same kind of compulsive reading, but it was entertaining enough to pass the time. I don't think I really clicked with Abercrombie until the chapter Furious I just finished from Before They Are Hanged. Somehow at the close of that chapter the evidence had become conclusive - these books are great and I'm looking forward to more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
I think he got stronger as he went. The Last Argument of Kings is by far the best book in that trilogy, I loved Best Served Cold, and I think in some ways The Heroes was almost the best thing he's written so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
I've torn through over 60% of Before They Are Hanged in three sittings. The Blade Itself was really good but it seemed like by book two the characters really take hold and allow the reader to really grasp the difference between them. I've found myself fighting off sleep to keep reading it. Still alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
A Nice Boy posted:I think he got stronger as he went. The Last Argument of Kings is by far the best book in that trilogy, I loved Best Served Cold, and I think in some ways The Heroes was almost the best thing he's written so far. I'd agree with this. Best Served Cold is better-written but a bit of a thematic retread of the trilogy, which brings it down a tiny bit. The Heroes is new thematic ground and the best thing Abercrombie has yet written. As Alex Preston writes here from the perspective of someone who doesn't normally read fantasy books: quote:Now we come to Abercrombie’s novel. I must be careful here not to be patronising, but it’s rather wonderful. I don’t mean to sound surprised. I had been told that it was a fine example of the genre, that he was doing interesting things. But The Heroes [Purchase] is magnificent. My mother used to drat her holiday reading with “War and Peace it ain’t” but I couldn’t help think of Tolstoy as I read Abercrombie. The skilful intercutting of battle scenes with the politicking that sits behind them, the exploration of war — not only what happens but why it happens, the way we manage to hold a vast array of characters in our head and feel something for all of them. It’s a lie that you need the character cheat-sheet at the beginning of War and Peace. If you’re reading the novel correctly, you know those characters better than you know your own family. I found the same with The Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:The Heroes is new thematic ground and the best thing Abercrombie has yet written. Is it really new thematic ground though? The battles read like a heavily truncated retread of the previous North vs. Union campaign, and the political side has been done before. Number one: Glokta and Calder have the same plot. Wily and cunning, terrible at fighting but who survive with help from a mysterious benefactor and a healthy dose of luck. At the end of the book/trilogy they cast off their old ruthless masters for an even more ruthless one, who turns out to be the mysterious benefactor (and the same person for both). They both then end up as the power behind the throne due to the king being an idiot. Number two: The Union command is comprised of a competent marshall trying to keep everything together, then three generals of varying levels of incompetence. It ends up with one dying early on in the campaign/battle due to recklessness, one dying due to leading a charge, and the last one ending up as the marshall. Number three: The Northern army is comprised of battle hardened warriors, about 10,000 strong, and the Union army is roughly three times that but not battle hardened. Due to cunning tactics the Northerners manage to reduce the Union army with minimum casualties early on in the campaign/battle. Number four: At the end of the book/trilogy Bayaz shows up and reveals that everything that happened was due to him. He then uses this reveal to force Calder/Glokta into working for him. I'm not saying that the entire book is the same, but it's impossible to ignore the similarities. Abercrombie has also done the whole futility of war thing before, with the previous North vs. Union conflict and the battle at Adua. I think that the reason why The Heroes rubs me the wrong way is that Abercrombie wants to have his cake and eat it; he wants to create books that talk about the horror and futility of war, while also having super-cool fight scenes like the fight between Gorst and Whirrun, the Bloody Nine's fights, or Threetrees vs. The Feared. The running commentary that Gorst gives about how ridiculous and unrealistic some parts are (Golden's armour, Scale's charge, Whirrun's sword, ect.) stand at pretty sharp contrast to the fight scenes and the world that they're set in. I'll just summarise; I don't think that this is a bad book by any means. The writing is good, there's no purple prose, the fight scenes are cool. But if you want to write a book on the fultility of war I don't see why you wouldn't use one of the many wars actually fought throughout history- they have a more personal touch because people know that these wars actually happened. I don't think a book with wizards, magic and demonic spirits is the best vehicle to convey the pointlessness of war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
It is pretty definitely new ground for Abercrombie, yes. Your reductionist approach to pointing out similarities ignores the numerous differences, particularly in the new characters who are not the usual active participants in great things. He scales the war down to the micro level by focusing on a single battle (and the lead-up and aftermath), and explores the impact of the battle and the war in general in a way that he hasn't done before. It's a very broad examination of the impact and effect of war - mental, physical, societal. And yes, it's done in a fantasy world, but this doesn't lessen the impact of it any more than the sci-fi trappings of Slaughterhouse 5 lessen its impact, to pick another anti-war example. I also take issue with your comment on the fight scenes, and how Abercrombie's portrayal of them as exciting or whatever robs them of being able to comment on the futility of war. For one thing, I don't think the majority of the fighting in The Heroes is portrayed as 'cool'. When Gorst is involved, he takes savage and repulsive pleasure in the destruction he wreaks, but the other characters don't approach this at all. Craw's approach to violence and fighting is of tired resignation, Calder shies away from it, Beck's experience is downright traumatic and it isn't portrayed as 'cool' at all. The 'Casualties' chapter was as affecting a piece of war writing as I've ever read, up there with Len Deighton's 'Bomber' in its depiction of the horrible, destructive violence of war. There is adrenaline and excitement in it, but always tempered by horror. This is not contradictory or counter-productive at all; most war memoirs I've read have made a point of showing that soldiers often feel excitement and a predatory thrill in battle, as often as they feel abject terror and horror. It doesn't harm the anti-war credentials of the book to highlight this sort of thing; it would be a markedly more two-dimensional portrayal of war if it did not explore the "positive" emotions involved in combat. Even one of the most downright pacifistic anti-war books I've read recently, A Long Long Way by Sebastian Barry, described the adrenaline and thrill of combat even though the protagonist literally wets himself every time a shot is fired. Another of the most powerfully anti-war books I've read, Piece Of Cake by Derek Robinson (which is highly recommended), contains very detailed depictions of aerial combat in WW2. This is not 'having cake and eating it'. Again, on it being a fantasy book, I don't think that harms its message at all. I'm not a big reader of fantasy; Abercrombie and Martin are the only 'serious' fantasy authors that I like (not counting Pratchett here) and I like Martin more for his plots and characters than the quality of his writing, which is competent and functional but nothing particularly special. Certainly all the other war-focused books with a strongly anti-war message that I've read have been either historical fiction or personal memoirs, but I don't think this harms The Heroes at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
The theme debate boils down to opinions; I don't think that a fantasy novel which includes magic, wizards, and indestructible swords has the required realism to effectively convey the horrors of war, particularly when none of the main PoV characters die or are even permanently injured. You clearly don't agree with me, and for you this book could convey this message effectively. Let's just agree to disagree. With regards to fight scenes: To be clear I'm not talking about the emotions involved in the fight scenes, as with the exception of Gorst everybody is terrified (even Logen, when he isn't the Bloody Nine). I'm talking about the fight scenes themselves. In The Heroes we have two brilliant fighters on opposite sides of the battle and hey presto they end up fighting near the end, in a melee which conveniently opens out so that they can fight properly. Nothing is changed by the outcome of that fight, and it feels like a bog-standard fantasy fight; happening because it's cool rather than serving any point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:particularly when none of the main PoV characters die or are even permanently injured. Wait did Black Dow not have any PoV chapters in this book? I actually can't remember.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
I took it as it not serving any point for the plot was the entire point of the scene, hammering in the pointlessness of it all by having these two legendary fighters face off and absolutely nothing being solved by it. The book's themes condensed down to one scene. I did think that Best Served Cold was a better book though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
fermun posted:I took it as it not serving any point for the plot was the entire point of the scene, hammering in the pointlessness of it all by having these two legendary fighters face off and absolutely nothing being solved by it. The book's themes condensed down to one scene. This is spot-on. The 'archetypical fantasy fight' serves no purpose and achieves nothing, except more death. It doesn't change anything meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:This is spot-on. The 'archetypical fantasy fight' serves no purpose and achieves nothing, except more death. It doesn't change anything meaningful. It's also (to me) a good subversion of the way those fights happen in fantasy literature: While they're facing off and Gorst even acknowledges the pure climactic intensity of the fight, somebody who you never even see reaches out with a spear and kills the unkillable northman whose name I've forgotten. On the one hand, there's nothing particularly deep or insightful in pointing out that war is random and people die for stupid reasons that have nothing to do with their skill. But I think it's unfair to call that a typical fantasy fight: it's almost the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
fermun posted:I took it as it not serving any point for the plot was the entire point of the scene, hammering in the pointlessness of it all by having these two legendary fighters face off and absolutely nothing being solved by it. The book's themes condensed down to one scene. That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that. If that's the case, what was the point of every other fight scene with Gorst? Especially his duel with Scale which even Gorst recognises as a cliche. All of those fights did serve a point; he saved Jalenhorm's division, took the bridge, and took the children. Is the point there that the fighting did have a point or that it didn't? Edit: I can see I'm reaching quite a lot now to find other faults in the book, which means I'm trying not to like it. I'm not too sure why, so I'll stop debating now. Sorry for making GBS threads up the thread. Plucky Brit fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Intelligent commentary, whether it's opposite the popular opinion or not, is never "making GBS threads up" a thread. You're not trolling, and you've inspired some of the best back and forth the thread has seen for awhile. So shut up and conversate, sir.  I do disagree with your assessment that a fantasy universe isn't a good vehicle for portraying the horrors of war. For one thing, you argue that fantasy cliches like wizards and the like are poor vehicles for conveying the brutality and realism involved, but Abercombie actually uses very few "fantasy" tropes in The Heroes, or in general. Though his books do have some magic, it's not seen very often, and most conflicts come down to soldiers in the trenches making GBS threads themselves as they hack each other apart. There are no dragons or wargs, and the wizards involved do almost nothing in The Heroes. Aside from the "cannons," which actually touched on the themes of new technology in war (which I think has much more in common with war over the centuries than it does fantasy tropes) the battle was pretty much a back and forth between two forces with not much fantastical going on. So, you've taken away a majority of the wizardry and there aren't many fantastical elements. What's left? Dudes in the trenches with swords, shields, and bows. This is basically a description of medieval times at this point, and I can hardly think of a time in history where warfare was MORE brutal, MORE horrifying. I think it's a perfect vehicle for depicting warfare. That said, I think there IS more typical "magic and dragons" fantasy out there that also does a good job of showing how terrible and pointless war can be and feel, but in different ways. Glen Cooke in "The Black Company" novels and Steven Erikson in "The Malazan Book of the Fallen" are two authors who write series with a shitload of warfare, but also have tons of mages and more typical fantasy happenings. That said, both authors do a great job, in my opinion, of using their magic as a corollary to soldiers these days hunched in the trenches while bombs/mortars/etc fall around them. Replace planes dropping bombs or napalm or something on opposing forces with a wizard flinging destruction from a hilltop, portrayed from the perspective of the terrified grunt watching, powerless, and I think its not that farfetched that fantasy can do a great job of depicting everything we've talked about here. Glen Cooke's series is incredibly popular with soldiers because it does such a good job of conveying the way the average soldier feels: A cog in a machine while higher powers fling them and heavy weaponry back and forth. A Nice Boy fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jun 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
The only problem I have is that 'the horror of war' is probably the most done trope in literature. I won't say overdone because I'm not entirely sure an incredibly important message like that can be overdone, especially when done well, but it's certainly not breaking any new literary ground. On the other hand, it's something you don't see often in the fantasy genre at all. That's sort of interesting in contrast, and says a lot about the fantasy genre in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 10:51
|
|
|
It's certainly not new in literature as a whole, but it's one of those themes that I never tire of seeing rehashed. Particularly because there are so many books (not just in fantasy) which outright glorify war instead, all cashing in on the success of Cornwell's Sharpe books and all called JACK STEEL: MAN OF HONOUR or similar. And as Hemingway put it: quote:War is the best subject of all. It groups the maximum of material and speeds up the action and brings out all sorts of stuff that normally you have to wait a lifetime to get. John Charity Spring fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jun 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Though it's kind of off-topic, the president of Harvard (a Civil War historian) wrote a really informative piece last month on how literature has enabled war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
That's an excellent essay. Thanks for sharing it. I think popular literature about war has certainly moved on from the 19th century days cited by that essay (Henty and his ilk) but there still exists an awful lot of popular culture that glorifies it, and undoubtedly this has its effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Can anyone offer me a physical description of the Gurkish and the Shanka? From what I can piece together the Gurkish are just savage men and the Shanka look like goblins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Beastie posted:Can anyone offer me a physical description of the Gurkish and the Shanka? From what I can piece together the Gurkish are just savage men and the Shanka look like goblins. I always saw the Gurkish as egyptians and the Shanka as hobgoblins. Not goblins, hobgoblins. What I really like about Abercrombie is that he does so little world building that he leaves it largely up to the reader to imagine the world. I don't think any two people will have the same internal vision of the world or people in it. There is no right or wrong, there is only what you imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
The Gurkish are normal humans, just darker-skinned than in the Union. Also 'Gurkish' covers loads of nationalities and ethnicities within that 'darker-skinned' category, since it's a large empire. Broadly Middle-Eastern, I guess. The shanka... I think they've got fur? And snouts maybe? I don't think they're ever described in detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
I picture the world as being roughly analogous to our own world during the Renaissance. The North is Scotland and Ireland, the Union is England and France, Styria is Italy, the Old Empire is Byzantium, and Gurkhul is generally North Africa and the Middle East. I'm sure this was intentional. In my head, Jezal and the officers of the Union dress like the Three Musketeers. Southerners include people with skin tones ranging from ebony to sandy. As for the Shanka, for some reason with the pig nose and fur I could never get the picture of that monster from the Honey Combs cereal commercials from when I was a kid out of my head, even though I know they were intended to be goblins or hobgoblins. This guy:  Okay, I guess my memory lied to me. He doesn't have a pig nose. Still, they pretty much look like your classic goblins I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
e
Bummey fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
For Shanka my mental image immediately flashed to Troggs from World of Warcraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Logen calls them "loving flatheads," so I've always pictured them looking something like Neanderthals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:Logen calls them "loving flatheads," so I've always pictured them looking something like Neanderthals. That was Dow!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Hi Bummey! I think the shanka look like hairy pig snouted dudes with flat heads, and kind of like RJ's trollocs, they can have other sorts of animalistic qualities.. hands, claws, talons, etc. I could be wrong, though. If the Gurkish are Egyptians, then what're Collem and Ardee West? Hispanic? I thought the Gurkish would be considerably darker, similar in skin color to Yulwei. I'm gonna go with African, because, yeah, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
I see them as being people who came out of an easy bake oven flawed. Like relatively normal looking but with a flat head, and one of their arms is too large. Not like they all look that way, but different variations. Like people poorly sculpted from clay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
dyehead posted:If the Gurkish are Egyptians, then what're Collem and Ardee West? Hispanic? I thought the Gurkish would be considerably darker, similar in skin color to Yulwei. I'm gonna go with African, because, yeah, I dunno. The Wests are just Europeans whose skin isn't as pale because they've actually spent their lives out and about doing things. They're commoners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 08:23
|
|