|
Hey, I read the first book of Abercrombie's trilogy about a year ago and it was pretty good so I snapped up the other two. For some reason the second and third novels have this strange formatting arse up, where every line of dialogue is double spaced and it's now a pretty big pain in the arse to read. I've been in contact with Gollanz and their eBook dude a few times (who admitted the books were not correctly formatted) and they've eventually said they've fixed it, and said they need to update with Amazon to deliver the new version. This was a couple of months ago and I've heard nothing since. If a couple of you Bad Dudes could prod them on twitter or something for an update regarding Abercrombie's kindle format books on Amazon that would be cool so I don't look like a loving wierdo obsessed with Abercrombie. https://twitter.com/#!/gollancz quick nerd snipe ed balls balls man fucked around with this message at 14:30 on May 18, 2012 |
#
?
May 18, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Hollis posted:Have there been any previews of the new book yet other than the cover and confirmation that Yes, Logen is in it Not to my knowledge but which finger is Logen missing? I ask, because the guy on the US cover of the book seems to be short one.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Not to my knowledge but which finger is Logen missing? I ask, because the guy on the US cover of the book seems to be short one. I always thought it was the middle or ring.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I always thought it was the middle or ring. This way my assumption too. I can't remember if they ever specifically mention which one, but I always imagined it to be the middle one. Looking at the US cover for Red Country he seems to be missing that one, so that's what I'm going to keep going with.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Logen is missing one of his middle fingers because in Before They Are Hanged Logen mentions how handy it is to have one middle finger wink wink nudge nudge.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
ed balls balls man posted:Hey, I read the first book of Abercrombie's trilogy about a year ago and it was pretty good so I snapped up the other two. For some reason the second and third novels have this strange formatting arse up, where every line of dialogue is double spaced and it's now a pretty big pain in the arse to read. I've been in contact with Gollanz and their eBook dude a few times (who admitted the books were not correctly formatted) and they've eventually said they've fixed it, and said they need to update with Amazon to deliver the new version. This was a couple of months ago and I've heard nothing since. If a couple of you Bad Dudes could prod them on twitter or something for an update regarding Abercrombie's kindle format books on Amazon that would be cool so I don't look like a loving wierdo obsessed with Abercrombie. I purchased all of Abercrombie's books on Kindle and they're all fine
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
tofes posted:I purchased all of Abercrombie's books on Kindle and they're all fine Are they UK editions?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Yesterday I finished the Heroes. I liked how Calder spared his brother's life and even voluntarily gave his kingship to him. Wonder what Bayaz will think about it however, since he wanted Calder as king and not Scale. But anyway, really great way to redeem yourself Calder, especially since it would've been so easy to just nod to Shivers and finish the big bro off without anyone knowing. It seems like Calder might want to become a straight edge, but like Cosca said in BSC, people rarely change. The Heroes was good though not as good as BSC and the First Law trilogy. The whole timespan of the book was about a week after all and I'm a sucker for bigger pictures. Well, no to wait for Red Country! I just hope it's not too western. Hard to imagine how it would fit if Abercrombie's fantasy world suddenly had guns in it. Cannons, gunpowder and bombs are already big changes to warfare.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
They'll probably be more like arquebuses. So folks with swords still have a chance to mess your day up, as long as you miss that first time. Lets Abercrombie have cowboys and claymores which is pretty much the best way to do fantasy. The problem with Bayaz is he doesn't seem to have any ideas about what he wants civilization to look like. The Union is a completely re-active empire, the Gurkish are the people doing new and exciting things with science. Sure that changes in The Heroes awesome cannons! but it doesn't change the fact that the Union is stagnant.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Bayaz believes in banking, not military innovations. It would be hilarious if he were to almost beat the Gurkish and Khalul only for the Union and all the civilization he built to crumble in a financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:They'll probably be more like arquebuses. So folks with swords still have a chance to mess your day up, as long as you miss that first time. Lets Abercrombie have cowboys and claymores which is pretty much the best way to do fantasy. The problem with Bayaz is he doesn't seem to have any ideas about what he wants civilization to look like. The Union is a completely re-active empire, the Gurkish are the people doing new and exciting things with science. Sure that changes in The Heroes awesome cannons! but it doesn't change the fact that the Union is stagnant. That's because the things he does have nothing to do with bettering the civilization he made and everything to do with one-upping Khalul and proving that he's the best at everything he does. He even destroyed a good chunk of the Union's capital city just to prove he was more skilled than Glustrod and could actually use the Seed for what he intended to do. The Gurkish attacking just gave him an excuse to actually try it so he could "save" Adua. Despite what he says to make himself look beneficent, Bayaz doesn't give one single poo poo about who died in the process because he did it and that makes him better than you. Even the king is treated like a replaceable toy. In the end he probably doesn't even care if the Union crumbles, because it's just a means to an end. He has footholds in the North and is working on one in Styria, he could easily turn either one of those into another Union in a few hundred years time. Bayaz doesn't believe in banking, he believes in Bayaz. Controlling the money is just another way of maintaining absolute control. Khalul uses religion and set himself up as a holy figure, Bayaz uses finance and established the oldest banking house in the Union.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Rurik posted:Yesterday I finished the Heroes. I liked how Calder spared his brother's life and even voluntarily gave his kingship to him. Wonder what Bayaz will think about it however, since he wanted Calder as king and not Scale. But anyway, really great way to redeem yourself Calder, especially since it would've been so easy to just nod to Shivers and finish the big bro off without anyone knowing. It seems like Calder might want to become a straight edge, but like Cosca said in BSC, people rarely change. I just figured that Calder will just rule everything behind the scenes, since Scale really seemed to appreciate his opinion on things and admitted that he's much smarter of the two. I'm sure Bayaz would approve. Rurik posted:Bayaz believes in banking, not military innovations.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Bussamove posted:That's because the things he does have nothing to do with bettering the civilization he made and everything to do with one-upping Khalul and proving that he's the best at everything he does. He even destroyed a good chunk of the Union's capital city just to prove he was more skilled than Glustrod and could actually use the Seed for what he intended to do. The Gurkish attacking just gave him an excuse to actually try it so he could "save" Adua. Despite what he says to make himself look beneficent, Bayaz doesn't give one single poo poo about who died in the process because he did it and that makes him better than you. Even the king is treated like a replaceable toy. In the end he probably doesn't even care if the Union crumbles, because it's just a means to an end. He has footholds in the North and is working on one in Styria, he could easily turn either one of those into another Union in a few hundred years time. It's worse than that. He openly opposes any sort of political movement towards democracy, and murders anyone who looks like they might make a competent, strong-willed leader who won't do what he tells them to do. He regards the people of the Union (of the world, really) as insects to be managed in as efficient a matter as possible to give him maximum freedom of action. The Union is a horrible and grindingly unfair place to live, and it will never get better, as long as Bayaz is alive. In The Heroes, Bayaz makes the point that with magic fading out of the world, he needs to develop new tools - which is why he's been backing the development of cannons.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Is there ever given an explanation as to why the magic is leaking out of the world? Is it just a results of the gates to the other side being closed all those years ago? I know the spirits and Bayaz both say that magic is leaving this world but there never seems to be an explanation.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Beastie posted:Is there ever given an explanation as to why the magic is leaking out of the world? Is it just a results of the gates to the other side being closed all those years ago? I know the spirits and Bayaz both say that magic is leaving this world but there never seems to be an explanation.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Beastie posted:Is there ever given an explanation as to why the magic is leaking out of the world? Is it just a results of the gates to the other side being closed all those years ago? I know the spirits and Bayaz both say that magic is leaving this world but there never seems to be an explanation. I always presumed it was because all the big magic people are dead. Euz and all his sons seemed to be if not the source of magic, then the only ones who could uphold and keep it going.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Beastie posted:Is there ever given an explanation as to why the magic is leaking out of the world? Is it just a results of the gates to the other side being closed all those years ago? I know the spirits and Bayaz both say that magic is leaving this world but there never seems to be an explanation. I'm betting on Bayaz eventually deciding to open new portals to restore his magic, but will end up unleashing all those pesky demons from the other side.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
I'm reading a bunch of 80s Fantasy novels right now - making my way through The Belgariad at the moment - and it's funny seeing all these tropes being used genuinely. I keep expecting the roles to be reversed any minute because of Abercrombie. Though a lot of these powerful magi characters really are messing around with monarchs and arranging things as they please. Reading Abercrombie's books has given me a way different view of "traditional" fantasy novels. Any time now the friendly wizard mentor will turn out to be an evil, manipulative son of a bitch... 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
FMguru posted:On Bayaz: The entirety of TFL and The Heroes being "The Bayaz Gets His Way Show Featuring Puny Mortals" really makes me hope that if/when Abercrombie returns to Styria that it isn't more of the same. Best Served Cold is probably my favorite of the novels because it shows that not everyone is cowed and pisses their pants when Bayaz is so much as mentioned, I would hate to see that all swept aside because he showed up and was smugly threatening to someone. On the other hand, seeing Bayaz/Shenkt interaction would be amazing given what was set up in BSC.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
I know I have the minority viewpoint here, but I really don't see Bayaz as an evil character. I see him as ruthless and amoral, which comes as a reasonable consequence of his personal power and longevity. I don't think he actually wants destruction or suffering for anyone if he can accomplish his goals without it, and several times he goes out of his way to be polite and agreeable. He has lost the ability to care for normal men because their short lives are inconsequential in his view. I find the pleasant, rational sociopath wizard a more interesting interpretation than evil overlord wizard but I guess it's just semantic dancing around the concept of evil either way.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I know I have the minority viewpoint here, but I really don't see Bayaz as an evil character. I see him as ruthless and amoral, which comes as a reasonable consequence of his personal power and longevity. I don't think he actually wants destruction or suffering for anyone if he can accomplish his goals without it, and several times he goes out of his way to be polite and agreeable. He has lost the ability to care for normal men because their short lives are inconsequential in his view. Bayaz simply has very little to relate to in mortal people. Nobody but Khalul poses a threat to him (except Tolomei at certain parts of The First Law). Like he said in the end of The Heroes himself, graves mean absolutely nothing to him whatsoever. The same can be said of pain and fear. When you experience the first very rarely and the latter absolutely never, they become abstract concepts very quickly. I bet Bayaz understands the men he orders to battle are afraid, but the feeling itself is completely alien to him. This is the same phenomenon that can be witnessed in a lot of other people both in real life and in the series. Calder for example in The Heroes pisses his pants because of fear on more than one occasion. When facing almost certain death, he regrets how he has made others face certain death (and presumably wouldn't do so again). And still, the same person as he is he has ordered the death of Forley the Weakest and orders the death of a boy who was tasked with watching the horses of the assassins that tried to kill him in The Heroes. Or imagine you're immortal and can do almost anything by your will alone. However you're lonely, since everybody around you are literally ants. They are talking ants, but they are way way smaller than your smallest toe, can be accidentally crushed, can't do almost anything you can (so they always ask you to do something for them) and their lifespan is a fraction of yours anyway. Now think about living with them. You might befriend several of them, since they are distinct personalities and in that regard are like people - like you - only with the exception that they're so small and weak. What happens when you accidentally step on one of your little friends? It's an inevitability. Or when they die off naturally in what seems to you like only days. When will you stop mourning their deaths? Or stop befriending them? After the 10 000th time surely? A key element of the human psyche is that it gets used to things. People of Adua are people and not ants, but in every other aspect they are like ants for Bayaz. I only made that comparison for my point to be more clear. I'm not saying that Bayaz isn't often incredibly horrible person to be next to. Horrible things happen to people who are near him (or far from him probably too). But I hold no illusions that I or anyone else would be somehow fundamentally different from him in his position. Bayaz isn't a benevolent wizard with unlimited patience because he's human. That kind of a wizardly father figure and unlimited patience is no more realistic than the thought that battles are great heroic things where men sing songs and fight without fear. How does the mythology of this fantasy world go, by the way? Is Euz the biggest figure we know of? Was he some kind of god-like creator? Who was Glustrod then, a human?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I know I have the minority viewpoint here, but I really don't see Bayaz as an evil character. I see him as ruthless and amoral, which comes as a reasonable consequence of his personal power and longevity. I don't think he actually wants destruction or suffering for anyone if he can accomplish his goals without it, and several times he goes out of his way to be polite and agreeable. He has lost the ability to care for normal men because their short lives are inconsequential in his view. I think that being willing to cause suffering and destruction to accomplish your goals categorizes you as evil, even if you don't actively seek that. I think using intimidation, torture and murder as some of your primary tools of doing things makes you evil. I think being a double faced bastard who accuses your enemies of being terrible because they are cannibals, yet employing them yourself makes you evil. We have seen him be petty, frustrated and offended by some of the things done to him and seek revenge for them. You can be polite, you can be agreeable but you can still be evil. And the thing here is that Bayaz doesn't do these things to seek some greater good. He does it to prove that he's the best, he seeks as well as divert attention from all the lovely and shady things he did. Did he kill Juvens? After the end of the three books the answer is at best "Maybe", at worst "Yeaahh, looks like it." Did he trick Tolomei like a heartless rear end in a top hat and toss her off the Tower? Yeah, that was confirmed. Did he sacrifice Yulwei to accomplish his decidedly non-good goals, yes. And this is while he's dealing with fellow immortals. People he's known for hundreds, for thousand years. The immortality argument doesn't work because Yulwei is a far, far, far better person then Bayaz, even when facing same problems and enemies. Zacharias too from what little we saw of him, even if he's nuts. None of his fellow Magi are really his friends in the books anymore, many of them actively loathe him. Yeah, I think that if he could just avoid being confronted for all his crimes by Khalul and become the most powerful person in the world without killing anyone, he would do it. But if that doesn't work he's more then willing to murder thousands, mortal or immortal, and that makes him a very bad person. Khalul actually has the nobler goal, even though his crimes are (arguably) worse. He wants to bring Bayaz to task for all his terrible actions. Like Bayaz he's willing to do anything to achieve this. Of course he might just be an rear end in a top hat too and doesn't give a poo poo about Juvens, and it's just continuation of their millenia long pissing match over who's the best. Rurik posted:How does the mythology of this fantasy world go, by the way? Is Euz the biggest figure we know of? Was he some kind of god-like creator? Who was Glustrod then, a human? Euz was half-demon half-human who rose up against the demons of the Other Side and banished them from the world so humans could grow and thrive. He had four sons, Juvens, Kanedias, Bedesh and Glustrod, who presumably were quarter-demons and thus had great powers and capabilities. He gave Juvens the skill of magic, Kanedias the skill of technology, Bedesh the skill of speaking with spirits but because he had only one skill left which was the skill of speaking with the beings of Other Side and for understandable reasons he didn't want this skill to spread he gave nothing to Glustrod. He created the First Law, which is not to talk with beings of the Other Side. And the Second Law, which is not to eat the flesh of men Juvens settled in the place that would become the Old Empire, raised up the humans there and created the Empire (obviously Roman Empire expy). He had twelve students the Twelve Magi. Kanedias went to Midderland, built the Tower of the Maker there but didn't really give a poo poo about the people around him, and built the Shanka. Bedesh we don't know about but my pet theory is that he went to North and had some children there, hence Logen has the ability to speak to spirits. We don't know what happened to Euz after this. Guess he and his sons might have had more kids, hence the existence of people with demon blood like Ferro or they got it from other demons. But he wasn't around when Glustrod got pissed that he got nothing, contacted all the demons on his own and went against his brothers and the Magi, destroying the Old Empire. Around this time he created lots of powerful beings and warriors, one of these which was Fenris the Feared. He lost, anyway, but his brothers got into fight over what to do with all the powerful things he gathered, primary of these being the Seed. After this Bayaz got into a fight with Juvens, went to become Kanedias's apprentice, Juvens found out about this and confronted Kanedias - presumably Kanedias killed him when they fought Bayaz did it. The So that started the big war in the books. Bayaz would stay in Midderland and create the Union. Khalul would go to the South and either found the Gurkhul Empire, or it might have existed on it's own and he simply exploits it as The Prophet. I think that's it, pretty much. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:16 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Khalul actually has the nobler goal, even though his crimes are (arguably) worse. He wants to bring Bayaz to task for all his terrible actions. Like Bayaz he's willing to do anything to achieve this. Of course he might just be an rear end in a top hat too and doesn't give a poo poo about Juvens, and it's just continuation of their millenia long pissing match over who's the best. The only indicator we've had that Khalul has any sort of noble goal is from his own Eaters, and I trust their opinion on the matter as much as I would trust Yoru's. That is, not at all. They're both portrayed as reprehensible people who will do anything to get the better of the other. I hate to toss around words like evil when talking about these books. Labeling Bayaz (or Khalul) as "totally evil" is as silly as labeling anyone else in the novels "totally good" and misses the point of Abercrombie's themes entirely. I will toss around words like completely and utterly self-centered, egotistical, manipulative, and amoral because that's exactly what they both are. Khalul is an unknown, but through his interactions with the other Magi and the various things revealed about him there's no indication that Bayaz has ever been anything else. The immortality-distances-him argument doesn't work when he betrayed his master and threw the woman he supposedly loved from the House of the Maker when he was still a young man. It's made it worse, surely, but it wasn't the cause.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Bussamove posted:The only indicator we've had that Khalul has any sort of noble goal is from his own Eaters, and I trust their opinion on the matter as much as I would trust Yoru's. That is, not at all. They're both portrayed as reprehensible people who will do anything to get the better of the other. Don't both Bayaz and Yulwei say at one point that Khalul believes Bayaz killed Juvens due to lies of Mamun? It's still left up to air if that is actually his motivation or just another thing he can use to gloat over Bayaz but he's done some pretty drastic poo poo to be driven only by showboating. Previously they were at the worst really uneasy allies but at the same side nonetheless. The deaths of Kanedias/Juvens started the actual brutal war between the two. I don't think Eaters and such factored in beforehand.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I think that's it, pretty much. Makes one wonder though how there were weak humans in the first place with demons around. I'll take some of my argument for Bayaz back. Immortality doesn't indeed count for his betrayal of Kanedias and Tolomei. And he and Khalul definitely do more damage than the other Magi with their Unions and empires. Though is it made clear at any point that Yulwei and Zacharias are less evil than Bayaz? We see only a glimpse of the latter and I didn't pay attention to the first at all when I read The First Law. I imagined then that he's a lackey of Bayaz much the same we Yoru Sulfur is, not that they're equals.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Really everything Yulwei does and says in the books paints him as a better person then Bayaz, his talks with Glokta, the way he treats Ferro, the way he makes his way in the world, his philosophy about revenge and so on, his selfless sacrifice against Tolomei...hell, he tried to negotiate with the Eaters who were trying to capture Ferro even though he could (and did) effortlessly kill them with a thought. Zacharias is trying to reforge the Old Empire and stop the ongoing chaos as an advisor to a warlord who from what little we hear from him seems not to be a bad dude - at least compared to all the other warlords. Not exactly a very likely goal to succeed but not a sinister one anyway. And like Yulwei he tries to move Bayaz away from his path of trying to use the Seed. There doesn't seem to be any documentation on deities. The Union is implicitly atheist or agnostic. The Gurkhul Empire believes in God whose Prophet Khalul is, but it's highly likely that he's Khalul's invention. Very little told about Northmen beliefs either aside from "back to the mud" which doesn't really have many religious connections.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
My memory is a bit vague on this, but Tolomei and Yulwei got locked in the house of the Maker at the end of the first trilogy , right?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Kellanved posted:My memory is a bit vague on this, but Tolomei and Yulwei got locked in the house of the Maker at the end of the first trilogy , right? Yeah, and Tolomei is ever so slightly angry
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Let's hope that someone will manage to free them in the next trilogy. Bayaz really needs to be taken out of circulation, he is just too smug about it all.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I totally forgot that Terez of Talins is a lesbian
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Beastie posted:I totally forgot that Terez of Talins is a lesbian I also appreciated the detail in BSC that she hit on Monza. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
BSC spoiler: I'm re-reading it and still can't find confirmed incest - are people reading into the rumors that are around in the book or is it expicitly stated somewhere? I feel like I keep skipping a part by accident.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Yeah I don't remember anything but gossip and rumors either (but it's been a while since i read it so I just chalked it up to my bad memory).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Silentgoldfish posted:BSC spoiler: I'm re-reading it and still can't find confirmed incest - are people reading into the rumors that are around in the book or is it expicitly stated somewhere? I feel like I keep skipping a part by accident.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
UncleMonkey posted:Doesn't Shivers throw the accusation in her face at some point and she doesn't deny it? When Shivers throws the accusation in Monza's face the last time, he's trying to kill her, so she may have had other problems. I think there are other admissions, in flashback, but can't find them now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
It just matches the way things feel between those two characters. When I was first reading their flirting I assumed they were a couple, but then kind of put that idea away when we found out they were siblings, only to have it re-suggested later. Also Monza's brother is basically sinful urges personified. We find out he was responsible for Monza choosing the sword over the farm, for allowing the troops to violently pillage the one city they captured, and for conspiring against their leader. That he's a sexual deviant with his sister just fits with his character as a terrible influence on Monza. No, you're not going to find a graphic scene to prove 100% that they were shacking up, but just like Bayaz's role in Juven's death it's highly implied if you read between the lines.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that they were sexually involved. At several other points people make snide comments about to Monza and she neither denies anything or feigns ignorance.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
I don't see how that's clear at all. Not acknowledging an accusation is not the same thing as confirming it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
syphon posted:I don't see how that's clear at all. Not acknowledging an accusation is not the same thing as confirming it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
I guess I interpreted that as Abercrombie making that intentionally ambiguous (meaning, we're never really supposed to know if it's true or not). It seems like some people are taking that as proof-positive that it DID happen, which I don't think I agree with. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:55
|
|