Joe Abercrombie - The First Law #3

Last Argument of Kings by Joe Abercrombie

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I keep wanting to write a review for this book now that I've finally finished it, but to be honest I just don't know what to write. I really liked the first book, loved the second one, and the third is... I don't even know. About halfway through I lost interest in the characters, even those I originally liked. (Logen being the exception.)

The finish line of this trilogy seems to be 'There is no good or evil, only ambitions. And the different ways how to fulfill them.' Which in itself is not a bad thing, after reading so many fantasy books the whole good vs. evil thing gets old, so it's refreshing when someone mixes things up. Abercrombie made the mistake to sacrifice his characters for that goal, and I don't even mean that he killed them. Someone else wrote in their review that it seems like Abercrombie already started distancing himself from his characters, knowing how things would turn out - and that's exactly it. If it feels like the author himself isn't invested in his characters anymore, why would the reader be?
This is especially frustrating since most of them were so unique (albeit over the top) and realistic in their flaws and strength, that one almost can't help but like them.

Compared to the first two books of The First Law, this one is a disappointment.

View all my reviews

---

There are two reasons - well, at least two - to read these books anyway: Logen Ninefingers and Sand dan Glokta. One a Northman who is known for his ruthlessness and violence, the other an Inquisitor who knows exactly how to break people, physically and mentally, to get what he wants.

The Blade Itself starts off with Logen running for his life, and his inner monologue had me laughing almost at once. An outlaw in the North, running from his former friend Bethod, who crowned himself King of the North. A warrior with only one real skill: killing. Have I mentioned yet that he's also a berserker? When Logen Ninefingers turns into the Bloody Nine you better run for your life, no matter if you are friend or foe. The Bloody Nine doesn't care about that, he just wants to kill.
The thing about Logen is, he's not a nice man. But when Jezal said that Logen was the best man he's ever known, that's still true. Logen might never get it right, but after everything he's done he still tries to be a good man, which is more than can be said about almost all other characters in this trilogy. And you want him to win, you want him to succeed, no matter what.

Then there is Glokta. Sand dan Glokta, once a dashing young officer and an incredible sword fighter, now a broken and crippled cynic. Tortured for years in a Gurkish prison, he now has become the torturer himself, since torture is something he knows very intimately. Glokta reminds me of no-one so much as of Tyrion Lannister (A Song of Ice and Fire). Both are physically weak/damaged/unattractive, but their minds more than make up for it. Though Glokta's is a good bit darker than Tyrion's, and a love for pitch black humor helps a lot when reading about him. And despite that, he still has a conscience. After everything is said and done, it is Glokta who at least partly manages to save the day and comes somewhat close to winning.

There are a lot more good reasons to read The First Law, but these two stand out to me. You can read an excerpt of The Blade Itself here.

And now for something completely different...

Enough about books for now, how about some music?

...well, this isn't really what I wanted to write about, but Maybe just started playing on my radio and I always have to grin when it does. Maybe is a song from the Sick Puppies, an Australian band who released their album Tri-Polar at the beginning of this year in Germany (it's the first they released here), with Maybe as the first single. I had already known the album for over half a year at that point, and listened to the song, oh, maybe a few dozen times? When I first heard the single on the radio - I didn't recognize the song. I don't know if this is only the case for Germany, but the single version was... a disaster.
So after I'd finally recognized the song and listened to the whole thing in the vain hope that surely it had to get better somehow, I sat down at my computer and did something I had only done once before: I wrote an email to my radio station, with roughly the following content:

Please, I beg you, don't ever play that version if the song again and use the album version instead. The single has so obviously had its teeth pulled to make it suitable for the general public that it almost physically hurts.

I'm not even kidding, I really cringed when it dawned on me that this was supposed to be Maybe.

So, now you might be wondering why I have this strange reaction now when I hear that song on the radio. Easy, because they listened. It was the one and only time that I heard them play the single version. (I also want to note that another station, which is supposed to be for 'young people' and usually plays music even I don't really want to hear, still plays the single version. Which is laaaame.)


Right! Now back on track. What I did want to write about was singers. And voices. And how some singers and their voices ruin their music for me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has some voices that just grate on my nerves. I have to admit that Adele is one of them, though I think the only song of hers I know is Set Fire to the Rain. But I just don't like her voice. The Fray is such a case, too, as is Kings of Leon. Though it's not so bad with Kings, I still listen to them.
Strangely enough I never had any problem with listening to Brian Johnson, though Bon Scott is pretty borderline. Andrew Stockdale? Bring it on. Anastacia? Love her. (What? She has a great voice, but I'm pretty sure it's an acquired taste for a lot of people.)

With Sophie Ellis-Bextor it's the other way around: I think she has a great voice, but I don't like her music. Just can't win, can I?

If anybody is actually reading this blog, tell me which singers you just can't listen to.

Brandon Sanderson - Mistborn #1

Mistborn: The Final Empire by Brandon Sanderson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Spoilers are blacked out, highlight to read.

Wow, okay, after the book I read before this, Mistborn really was a breath of fresh air. It has heroes that are likable, not perfect, do in fact make mistakes, and are aware of not being invincible. It has magic that doesn't automatically make the good guys better than everyone else. It has a fast paced plot, filled with action, while still making time to ask some important questions and take a closer look at society. (Theirs, not ours. ;)) What's more, you have to respect an author who isn't afraid to kill off their hero when it is necessary.

I admit that, the closer I got to the end, the more I started wondering what was left to tell of this story - considering that Mistborn is the first part of a trilogy. But once I had finished the book I knew that this was only just the beginning. There will be no fade to black and a happy ending yet, fortunately for the readers, unfortunately for our heroes.

View all my reviews

Something is fishy

I started reading the first book of Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy two days ago. I like the book, the characters, the concept of 'magic'. I even like the female leading character, and that's not necessarily guaranteed with a man writing.

But sometimes I think that the male lead, Kelsier, is just too good to be true. Not in the 'he's too perfect' way of Mary Stu, Kelsier isn't invincible, he's not all knowing. He has more abilities than most others, but that doesn't mean he's better than them. On the contrary, those who only specialize in one of his abilities will most likely always be better than him, his strength is that he can combine the different aspects. (Yes, I know I'm cryptic, but I'm trying not to spoil anybody.)
But I admit that at some points of the story I start thinking that he can't really be what he seems. He has his secrets, yes, but everybody accepts him as one of the 'good guys'. Maybe I've been infected by Vin's mistrust, but somehow I'm just waiting for Kelsier to betray her in some way.

To be honest, I'd prefer if there was a darker side to Kell, I have a weakness for the mysterious badass anti-heroes. ;)

Robin Hobb - Soldier Son Bk. 1

Shaman's Crossing (Soldier Son #1)
by Robin Hobb

Phew, done!

I have rarely read a book that was so hard to continue and so captivating in turns. It is, over all, not a bad book, but it is also not nearly the best one Robin Hobb has written.

The introductory part alone makes it very difficult for readers to stay with it, since for the first 200 pages almost nothing happens. Instead Hobb, through the eyes of Nevare Burvelle, introduces his world to us. In every little detail, it seems. This may help the reader to get a good picture of what is happening how and where, but- there are too many pages of endless descriptions of the surroundings and happenings. There comes a point at which the author needs to stop and let the readers use their imagination. If I wanted to be told every little detail I'd watch a movie instead. This isn't just true for the beginning of the book, after things finally have been put into motion and the story becomes interesting - again, pages and pages of descriptions and details. I admit that in some cases I only skimmed a few pages, and still managed to gather what the point in all of it was.

Then of course there are the parts that make it damn hard to lay this book to the side and do something productive instead...

I really don't know if I would recommend this book. I'm sure there are enough people who would really enjoy Shaman's Crossing, but as for me I can only hope that the next two books will be better.

Not really fantastic

Something that... well, not really annoys me, but that I notice more and more often, is that sometimes fantasy authors make especially the simple things too easy for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I know that there's a lot of research that goes into a book, and that goes for every genre. If it doesn't, it's imply not a good book. Fantasy takes a lot of its clues from history, so there's one area of research. Then there's usually the animals, how they behave, their characteristics, or how to tend for them. Do you know how many different ways there are to harness a horse or the types of bridles, saddles and so on? I don't. There are battle tactics to be studied, as well as how an army would behave and be provided for during a campaign, and so on...

There are surely some cases in which the research took longer than the actual writing of the book. And then again...

I'm currently reading Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb, which plays in a completely new world. Believe me when I say that alone the making of that world in the literal sense - as in drawing the map - is difficult enough. I've done it once. Then there are cities to name, as well as the characters, giving it a history, all the details that a reader probably won't necessarily think about. And after all that is done, all those big things taken care of, it's the small things that sometimes shake the impression for me.

In Shaman's Crossing there are not only hours, days, weeks, months and years, but they also apparently use laudanum to numb injured soldiers. Why? This is a completely new world, who says that our rules have to apply there? Why are the hours sixty minutes long? Why do the weeks have seven days? Why are they even called hours, weeks, months, etc? I'm not even expecting that the author makes up a whole new calendar (though given that three of her other trilogies take place in the same world, at least Robin Hobb only would've had to do it once for nine books), but how about at least thinking up different names?

I'm sure there are more examples for this, and as I said, they are small things. But still something worth thinking about.