[worry]

Kinda "inside the box" thinking I suppose but I thought of him as all three Lannister kids rolled into one, with a cold-blooded pop to match. At least that's how I'd describe him in shorthand were I to recommend the series to someone. Which I certainly will be doing.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Mark Lawrence, on 14 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 11 January 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

Ah, the age old conundrum — should I keep reading something I don't enjoy in the hopes that my effort will pay off?

My answer would be "no". If you didn't get the first book then I'd give up.

However, there is this hilarious (to me) youtube review of King of Thorns by a guy who absolutely hated Prince of Thorns

https://www.youtube....h?v=I88Ds_ah5J0

Wait, is this the real Mark Lawrence?

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

After watching the linked review of King and then going back to that reviewer's video discussing Prince in order to see what he found faulty in it, I think I may like the rest of the series. The reviewer brought up many salient points in his first video, most of which I agreed with. To then hear him say that the second book improved on most areas makes me think that I'll be giving the series another try sooner rather than later.

[worry]

Have faith, mortal.

[Morgoth]

Abyss, on 14 January 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

fairly radical differences between Jorg and Kellhus once you're past the very basic 'anti-hero' element.

Seems about as fitting a comparison as that whole Glotka is a ripoff of Tyrion Lannister thing.

[Mark Lawrence]

In other news - here are the UK & US covers for Prince of Fools

http://mark---lawren...over-rough.html

[polishgenius]

That UK cover is fucking awesome.

[champ]

This is one thing I don't understand, why different book covers - does it really effect the different markets that much or is there another reason behind it?

[Mark Lawrence]

champ, on 18 January 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

This is one thing I don't understand, why different book covers - does it really effect the different markets that much or is there another reason behind it?

Different covers is the norm. The Broken Empire trilogy was unusual in having the same US & UK cover (and carrying it, or copies of it, to most of 30 odd countries).

Ace (US) hoped to get Jason Chan again for Prince of Fools but he was busy and they couldn't wait. Voyager (UK) decided they could wait, and got him to do the UK cover.

[Ukjent]

The UK cover is awesome!

[Ukjent]

The level of detail is great on the US, but the artwork of the UK is much more stylish and don't give that standard fantasy cover feeling. Damn I hate how all the words are split in English.

[champ]

Mark Lawrence, on 18 January 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

champ, on 18 January 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

This is one thing I don't understand, why different book covers - does it really effect the different markets that much or is there another reason behind it?

Different covers is the norm. The Broken Empire trilogy was unusual in having the same US & UK cover (and carrying it, or copies of it, to most of 30 odd countries).

Ace (US) hoped to get Jason Chan again for Prince of Fools but he was busy and they couldn't wait. Voyager (UK) decided they could wait, and got him to do the UK cover.

I just wondered if there was a why to having different covers as the normal thing to do.

I love the UK covers, I figured it would be best simply going with the better cover across all markets though I know it is down to personal preference.

[Eddie Dean]

To comment on the "I don't really like the first book, should I keep reading" discussion: Yes. I was very "meh" about book 1. I thought it was readable, but wasn't a fan. I decided to read book two while waiting on some early 2014 books to come out and I was blown away. Book 2 and 3 were fantastic and were some of the best books I've read all year.

[QuickTidal]

Man, I'm conflicted on those covers.

They are BOTH stellar. The red one is really drastic, different, and stunning...and the US one might look more like the first trilogy on my shelf.

I wonder if we'll get the US or UK one here in Canada...

Either way, I wants it now.

[The_Wanderer]

I liked this trilogy a lot. I was reminded of Abercrombie and his tendency to reverse tropes as I read it. Jorg's story is like a reversal of the antiheroes journey. Normally the antihero's journey begins with a morally sound character that is forced to make morally complicated and pragmatic decisions that force the reader to question his goodness. Broken Empire reverses this. Within the first 50 pages of Prince of Thorns there's no doubt that Jorg is a lunatic sociopath, but as the story progresses he starts to make the decisions that are typical of antiheroes.

[Aptorian]

Briar King, on 23 January 2014 - 03:34 AM, said:

I really had to wrap my head around that bk3 ending. I didn't know how to feel right after I finished, it was late and my Ambien was just kicking in making me fairly loopy. After like 2 days though I started really digging and realized that it was actually fucking badass.

Just finished the third book yesterday and I am also trying to figure out what I think of the ending and the entire series as a whole.

To start things of I think that Jorg is both the series major strength and its biggest flaw. Everything that happens around Jorg is generally a fun read. Things get broken, people die and some kind of amusing or pithy observation or comment usually follows it, but the further the series goes he also gets pretty far into the territory of the Mary Sues.

I don't actually believe the character development that happens through the three books. The Jorg we meet in the first book was a monster. The aristocrat version (both in term of title and that stand-up joke) of an African child soldier. He rapes, tortures, mutilates and kills for fun and just because he feels like it. Basically the worst traits of a child given fuel to grow and develop. Now, we could of course make the argument that this is in part because of Corions magical influence, but really that is the excuses that a weaker man would tell him self, Jorg is just a broken human being. I do not find it believable that Jorg just becomes a better man as he gets older and sees more of the world. I think it is bullshit and in the end, it wasn't actually what I wanted to read. I wanted to read a book about a psychopath warcriminal who rapes and pillages his way to the throne of the empire, a guy who builds armies of mercenaries and uses the blackest means to win. How ever we don't get that, we get the nightmare version of the typical Young Adult fantasy journey. Which is cool as well, it was a fun read, but the first chapters promised something very different from what Jorg grew into.

I also absolutely hated the retconning of Jorgs actions that happened in the last book, namely regarding the church. Turns out that the monk he killed when he was delirious with fever as a child actually fondled him. Which of course makes it okay to stab him with a hot poker. And that monastery he burned down, where he hammered nails into the head of a Bishop, was just revenge for once again being molested by a clergyman. Can we get more generic and uninventive? I am so very tired of every single Christian authority figure in any form of media has to be a pedophile. It’s so very trite. But what is worse is that this further ruins the image I have about Jorg. Now his actions have a “good reason”. There is a kind of hard justice that has been dispensed, and whether or not you believe in an eye for an eye, suddenly Jorg seems a lot more human. I don’t want that. I want Jorg to have killed for the sake of plunder and fun and as a pure excertion of power. I want him to kill because he can. There are no rules. Jorg makes his own rules as he goes along.

It of course culminates when he sacrifices himself the ending. Again. I understand why he does it but I find it unbelievable and un-Jorglike. He does it for his brother? And for his daughter? It’s cute, it really is, but I preferred the Jorg who was a coward and a contrarian and full of hate and anger. I wanted him to march into the afterlife and choke out his own brother. I wanted him to grab “the wheel” and instead of turning it back, set it spinning ever faster. I wanted him to find a way into the world of machines and fight them there because fuck the builders. Most of all I read these three books waiting to see a world where Jorg was the emperor. I wanted to see the might of the Empire used to fight back against the Dead King, the Builders and what ever else might show up in a later book.

But I guess this ending also works. I just wanted more. I wanted something dark that I would still remember in ten years when I was think about fantasy books that did things differently. Something that make Dostojevskijs writings seem uplifting. Of course, I doubt a lot of readers would have been willing to go on that Journey with Jorg, but I did and I do.

On the other hand I really liked the way the narrative is designed all through the books. I generally do not like books that jump back and forth in time because, from what we know of the present/future we know what wont happen in the past, but I think Lawrence does well to dance around such issues and even pulled a fast one on me a couple of times. It was interesting to see one thing revealed in the past and see it suddenly come into play in the future.

I was also less than pleased with how little of the world building and magic he used in the books, but somehow, slowly, teasingly things are unravelled over the course of the books, to the point that I had an almost Eriksonian glee at discovering new details that made the puzzle come together. I liked that development in the narrative, which also made the fact that there wouldn’t be the adventures of Jorg 4-6 so sad.

I am curious to know what happens in later books. I sounds like Prince of Fools and probably the rest of the Red Queen trilogy will take place before the ending of Emperor of Thrones, but what comes after that? Jorg, if I understand the ending correctly, basically killed magic. All the weird stuff in the world should be going away. Unless the wheel starts turning again of course. So will the next book become more sci-fi? Will technology have a bigger role?

This post has been edited by Maybe Apt: 27 January 2014 - 10:57 AM

[Cause]

I think the red queen story line is supposed to be concurrent with the thorns story line.

[Traveller]

Totally agree there Apt. I wanted it to carry on along the 'dark path' that it promised after the first few chapters. It's like maybe it was going down a route that would have been unpalatable to a lot of people, so ML changed the direction, I don't know.

And the retconning of Jorgs actions, and putting it all in a fairer light, just reminds me of what happened to Darth Vader - joining the dark side and being a badass villain, but then finding put that he only did it in order to save his wife and child etc.

I'm still waiting for a dark fantasy from the pov of the bad guy that does it justice.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 27 January 2014 - 02:13 PM

[Aptorian]

Cause, on 27 January 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I think the red queen story line is supposed to be concurrent with the thorns story line.

It is. The book blurb mentions that the protagonist at one point gets into a duel with Jorg of Ancrath, and there is talk of magic and wizards, so it has to be before the wheel is stopped spinning.

Traveller, on 27 January 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

And the retconning of Jorgs actions, and putting it all in a fairer light, just reminds me of what happened to Darth Vader - joining the dark side and being a badass villain, but then finding put that he only did it in order to save his wife and child etc.

I've always thought that the Star Wars universe was pretty shallow (I haven't read the books), so I would actually call it unfair to Jord to compare him to Darth Vader. We have three books to watch Jorg grow and change. We have is internal monologue and his own condemnation of himself and the things he does. Which makes where he ends understandable. I just found it all too convenient and "good". Even when Jorg was bad in the later books, he was doing good. Sure his action are horrible but his intention is always for a greater good.

I would have preferred if he was the bad guy and his opponents had actually been the good guys. I loved the idea of The Prince of Arrow being some kind of born again Alexander who was going to restore Europe to its former power, and Jorg was going to be the Dark Prince of Thorns who would oppose him. I liked that. The Dead King did not serve as the same kind of foil and I think the potential threat of the guy was introduced too late.

Imagine if instead Jorg had fought and killed the Dead King in book two and usurped his power. Then in book three you have Jorg, the Prince of Darkness, marching upon Roma where the Hundred are holding their last stand. A final battle between the Good King of Arrow and the Dark King of Ancrath. And of course told through the memories of Jorg, it would also seem perfectly fair and good because Jorg does not play by the rules.

This post has been edited by Maybe Apt: 27 January 2014 - 03:27 PM

[Traveller]

Well yes, there's no comparison in terms of characterisation. Just the view that Vader was such a great movie villain, and rather than take the opportunity with the prequels to chart the rise of someone who enjoyed the power that the dark side gave him, we ended up with a character whose 'evil ways' were justified. The Dead King story arch was an interesting way to go, but didn't make as much sense as keeping Arrow as the opposition. (Goddamn it's difficult to post from a phone when it changes every other word I put in.)