|
coyo7e posted:He does come back as a supporting character in a later book (BSC, iirc?), which provides a lot of closure imho. It's Red Country, and I wouldn't call him a supporting character so much as he's a main character who's not a POV character. His change over the course of the book is one of the major threads of the story, imo.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Yeah, whichever was the Spaghetti Western. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
He's with us in spirit in BSC through Shiver's attempts at putting all his catchphrases into action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
savinhill posted:He's with us in spirit in BSC through Shiver's attempts at putting all his catchphrases into action. Yeah, that kind of put a sour taste in my both for Shivers. There is only one Bloody Nine. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
But Shivers is no ones dog. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
I felt so bad for shivers throughout that book. The whole time it was just "Man, you're a badass stop letting things happen to you." I wish he would have just talked things out with people or just left way earlier in the book. The end of red country I thought was perfect for Shivers though. I thought it showed real character growth in a positive direction. Which is lacking at times in Abercrombie books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
packsmack posted:I felt so bad for shivers throughout that book. The whole time it was just "Man, you're a badass stop letting things happen to you." I wish he would have just talked things out with people or just left way earlier in the book. The end of red country I thought was perfect for Shivers though. I thought it showed real character growth in a positive direction. Which is lacking at times in Abercrombie books. Jezal was arguably a better person by the end of the trilogy, it just didn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Jezal is definitely changed. I actually think that most of the characters have incremental changes throughout the trilogy. I guess I was kind of unclear. A lot of people have a lot of changes throughout the series but it is not always the easiest to pick up on. So it doesn't always feel real, because they are only small changes. Which is realistic when you factor in that the books only occur over a small time frame when given in reference to a person's life time. The author was, at times, subtle about the development of characters throughout each individual book. Subtle to the point that it was possible to miss it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
west doesn't really change though, unless you count his rise through the ranks
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
wellwhoopdedooo posted:As for West, I completely disagree that he was a bad person. The regicide was more than justified and if not entirely an accident, certainly not premeditated. He punched his sister out once, not regularly. What appeared in the story was the first time, and then he avoided her out of guilt, shame, and fear that he'd do it again until he died. In every other instance, he was fair in all his dealings, thoughtful to people under his command or social status and on multiple occasions stood up for them when he had absolutely nothing to gain from doing so. He was a mostly-selfless and kind person with clinically significant anger issues. I'm not saying that beating his sister is in any way justifiable, but it's literally the only way he wasn't a classic hero in a hosed-up world. Totally agree about West, he wasnt perfect, but he was easily the most decent person out of the whole male cast. And since when is regicide necessarily a bad thing? Kings suck, deal with it monarchists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
I've started reading The Blade Itself after recommendations from some people in the Rothfuss thread. It's ok so far - I'm just not sure if it's for me, but it could just be that the story hasn't really picked up yet. Crossposting myself: I posted:Logen is chilling with Bayaz, the king of the north showed up and threatened them, then Bayaz gave Logen a sword. Fenris the Feared scared a bunch of people at some council meeting, and Glokta is interrogating the guy who's been assassinating mercers. Is there a point at which you'd say "If you don't like it yet, it's unlikely you'll start liking it"? Or have I passed it already?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Boing posted:I've started reading The Blade Itself after recommendations from some people in the Rothfuss thread. It's ok so far - I'm just not sure if it's for me, but it could just be that the story hasn't really picked up yet. Crossposting myself: Some similar thoughts from page 86: the JJ posted:Soooooo... just got done with the first First Law book. I was, how to put it, unimpressed? I mean, it was fine, but it had been talked up a lot. I was expecting something like a new Glen Cook. Instead I got a better than average but generic as poo poo fantasy novel. Notahippie posted:You're getting out of it exactly what Abercrombie wants you to, but it's because he wrote the First Law trilogy specifically as a way of criticizing and playing with standard fantasy tropes but did it subtly enough that it takes most of the trilogy before you realize what he's doing. The first book is almost completely standard modern fantasy, but in doing it that way he's leading you down a garden path - he's setting up archetypes that you'll be basing a lot of your interpretations of the characters' behavior on so that when he gives you the series of big reveals, you can go back and see all the clues he built in. Avoid spoilers, keep reading, but expect the payoff to wait until the last book. John Charity Spring posted:Personally I think some of the payoff comes in Before They Are Hanged, but aye. Above Our Own posted:I think you'd enjoy the trilogy because Abercrombie's entire shtick is subverting just about every trope you mentioned in your last sentence there. He does it well and it makes for an amusing read, but the whole first book of the trilogy is just setting things up so the author can turn the genre conventions on their head over the next two books. It's not a great structure but it does get much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Thanks, that sounds good. I'll keep at it and wait until later to be impressed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Totally correct, the first novel is probably half boring exposition and setting up characters. Once The cocky kid holds the bridge alone though, things start shifting from what you are used to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Boing posted:Thanks, that sounds good. I'll keep at it and wait until later to be impressed! I would avoid this thread at least until you've finished the main trilogy. Its been long enough that the spoilers are coming fast and loose in here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
I honestly thought the whole trilogy owned bones from the second Glotka fell down the stairs. So, uh, keep reading at your own risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Fucken double posting from my phone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:I just finished Red Country. Man, I really liked it, and I'm not even a huge fan of Westerns. I actually was way more interested in the Fellowship and Crease scenes than the climactic parts of the story (although I still had to love a climactic wagon chase). And I loved Shy (and am kind of torn between being glad that she gets to exit the narrative being happy and alive and being sad that we'll likely never see her again). See, it is possible for your dark and edgy "gritty" fantasy to have female characters who play a direct role in the story and do not fall neatly into the category of whores(/sex objects), rape victims(/sex objects), or (emphatically not sex objects, probably villainous). Monza isn't any of those categories.  Well, okay, maybe she's a little villainous.Edit: and to link into an early discussion about sympathies, I relate a deeply worrying amount to Calder and Finree. I love Calder's last scene with his brother in particular. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Monza isn't any of those categories. That whole Monza thing is great and I'm going to spoiler it because it's right near the end of the book. She's not really villainous, but her brother is and she loves him so much she's totally blind to it and he is playing her for a fool. Meanwhile everyone else sees it as so loving obvious that they assume she must know what's going on. Hence the stabby stabs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Monza isn't any of those categories. My only problem with Calder is that he's jezzail mk2. Also something tells me he's going to come to a poor end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:My only problem with Calder is that he's jezzail mk2. This is literally the opposite of fact. A fiction, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Nah Calder is in every way suited to be a ruler while Jezzail isn't. Making deals, betraying allies, playing politics is Calder's meat and bread. He isn't perfect at it or anything, look at him and Dow, but he's actually been brought up in that life. Jezzail just isn't at all equipped to end up where he ended up. What makes you think Calder is going to come to a poor end? Certainly nothing in the books suggests it. He's gotten rid of his major enemies, he's consolidating his power, and he knows exactly how dangerous Bayaz is so he's unlikely to gently caress that situation up. At what point do we stop using spoiler tags? I'll admit I feel like 80+ pages is enough but I don't want to spoil things for new folks. In the Bad Threads we gave up on them really quickly, but that was because we hated everyone and everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:At what point do we stop using spoiler tags? I'll admit I feel like 80+ pages is enough but I don't want to spoil things for new folks. In the Bad Threads we gave up on them really quickly, but that was because we hated everyone and everything. Forum Rules have it as "4) Spoiler Policy: For most threads, please use spoiler tags for any major plot events no matter how old the book is, unless it's common knowledge (Romeo and Juliet kill themselves?!?) or if you're in a discussion thread for people who have read that specific author or book. If you *are* in a discussion thread for a specific author, book, or series, use spoiler tags for anything that's been out less than about six months to a year."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
I think it's more like "the thread participants generally decide how the thread should go". Personally I find them annoying for old stuff but I also don't ever read past the first post until I've read it if it's a book/series that interests me. Definitely anything new should be spoilered but the trilogy is pretty old now. Bayaz crossbows his father Juvens dead on the toilet etc. Honestly if all plot points end up spoilered I'll probably just throw a big old spoiler block around any genuine discussion post, it's pretty onerous to specifically spoiler individual sentences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
It depends on threads, on some threads people (well not all people but at least those who spend too much time here) assume that people read most of the thread before posting, you get lots of "ohhh but we discussed the relation of autism and magic system back in 2012 already" if you mistakenly try to discuss something old that's new to you (Sanderson thread for example), but then on others it's "keep the newbie questions coming baby" (Malazan or Dresden threads for example). If your own attitude is former then I'd spoiler everything because no one wants to read shitload of spoilers while trying to get caught up on new author. Personally I prefer latter, if I'm new to author I just prefer to post my newbie stuff and only start following discussions for real when I'm caught up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Having to spoil stuff is irritating, no question. But when you see totally unrelated threads recommend The First Law series, like the US politics thread was doing a few days ago, you see the importance. Throwing around uncovered spoilers in here and ruining someone's realization of What's Really Going On ought to be a crime. Remember that dawning "Oh poo poo!" feeling you got when everything came together? What kind of monster wants to take that away from people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Then again, what kind of a dumbass reads a thread about a book before finishing it on Somethingawful.com forums? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
The OP should definitely be edited with a warning if we allow spoilers - looks like the OP still posts on these forums so that's viable. I think any book is hurt by even spoiler-warninged discussion of it, unless its a book club type deal where everyone reads to a certain point and discusses it.mallamp posted:It depends on threads, on some threads people (well not all people but at least those who spend too much time here) assume that people read most of the thread before posting, you get lots of "ohhh but we discussed the relation of autism and magic system back in 2012 already" if you mistakenly try to discuss something old that's new to you lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Then again, what kind of a dumbass reads a thread about a book before finishing it on Somethingawful.com forums? This works fine for a thread about a specific book, but it's a bit unfair to expect someone to have read every author book before looking at an author thread. I generally try to just spoil the really big end of book reveals like the fact that bayaz is the evilest guy ever or things from other books like if I mentioned that ned dies in Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:The OP should definitely be edited with a warning if we allow spoilers - looks like the OP still posts on these forums so that's viable. I think any book is hurt by even spoiler-warninged discussion of it, unless its a book club type deal where everyone reads to a certain point and discusses it. What sort of thing would you want edited in? Just a warning that most of the books are fair game for spoiler-tag-free discussion in the later pages so get out if you haven't read them and don't want to be spoiled?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This works fine for a thread about a specific book, but it's a bit unfair to expect someone to have read every author book before looking at an author thread. Sure...but it's not unreasonable to expect that anything that is, say, more than one year old you have read or don't care about being spoiled....
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:What sort of thing would you want edited in? Just a warning that most of the books are fair game for spoiler-tag-free discussion in the later pages so get out if you haven't read them and don't want to be spoiled? Sure, that would be fine, but I don't mean to make the decision for the thread - that was sort of conditional on consensus being reached.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Yeah just pop something in the op about spoilers maybe not being strictly adhered to in the thread so probably don't read an 88 page conversation about Joe's books until you've actually read all the books just in case. Still, I think I do prefer spoiler tags personally because I know I hate being spoiled and after reading one book in a series I'll go to a thread and go "hey dudes I just finished this cool book by the author this thread's about! I'd like to talk about it!". But I'm a horrible neeerd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
If the book is over a year old, don't expect spoilers seems like a pretty good concession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
It seems to me kind of pointless to have an author thread that people new to the author can't read or start a conversation about the book they just finished because someone might have just ruined the ending, more so when a new book in his primary setting hasn't come out in 2 years so all of the people who already read it are pretty much rehashing the same "yeah that guy's a dick but I loved when he..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Half the reason I don't post in any TBB thread (other than the fact that most of them are dedicated to trashy genre novels) is because I don't want to end up spoiling something for myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It seems to me kind of pointless to have an author thread that people new to the author can't read or start a conversation about the book they just finished because someone might have just ruined the ending, more so when a new book in his primary setting hasn't come out in 2 years so all of the people who already read it are pretty much rehashing the same "yeah that guy's a dick but I loved when he..." It's also kinda dumb to have to spoil entire posts talking about poo poo that's been out for ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
The OP has just about all the information someone needs to decide whether to read the books or not. Just add a warning at the end of the OP that there are spoilers in the thread, and that you should not read it until you finish the books if you want to avoid them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
If someone really wanted to help they could demarcate the thread pages where new books came out, but that's hard. I forget what books this thread encompassed but I think it was at least the heroes and red country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
I started it before Best Served Cold was out if I remember rightly. Also there's a big troll spoiler on like page 1 and 2 so even those aren't safe, exactly. I should probably just put a warning in the first post and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:42
|
|