[Hocknose]

So decided to start a new series and the two that have caught my eye are:

"The First Law" by Joe Abercrombie &
"The Prince of Nothing" by R. Scott Bakker

Any of you guys read one of these or both? What are your thoughts? (no spoilers please).

[QuickTidal]

First Law. No question. People here are REALLY divided about Prince Of Nothing (I fall into the hate it category), but there seems to more universal praise of First Law.....and Abercrombie is 8 kinds of awesome as a writer. Read it. Love it.

[champ]

First Law no contest, I really had to battle to finish the first 3 Bakker books, the first one has abit too much philosophical debate for my liking whilst Abercrombie kept me hooked start to finish!

[Hocknose]

cheers for the input guys...

what make The First Law so good? What kind of writing style does Abercrombie have?

[Grief]

Prince of nothing is far better.

The setting is a lot more interesting, as are the characters. People may be divided about Bakker, but the praise for Abercrombie has been far from universal.

Personally, I found the abercrombie dull. It felt like he had a list of cliches, and was making sure to subvert them at some point. This felt almost as dull as a book that just maintained the cliches.

Prince of Nothing, while harder going to begin with, was definetely more enjoyable.

People are pretty divided Bakker. Lots love it, lots hate it.

Abercrombie, for the majority of people, seems to fall into "Enjoyable certainly, but not brilliant", with a few people(such as myself) finding it rubbish.

Chances are, if you read Abercrombie, you'll like it.

I would still recommend Bakker though, because they're better, and if you fall into the "love" category, you'll enjoy them a lot more than Abercrombie.

[Abyss]

I'll contradict the upthread posters.

Both series are great and absolutely worth your time to read.

Abercrombie's Fist Law is a fun series with some great characters. As a related aside, i think the series works way better as a whole, read together, than separate with long breaks. And if you like 1-3, ABSOLUTELY read Best Served Cold which is the best in the set imnsho.

BUT...

Bakker's Prince of Nothing is a brilliant and different series. It doesn't follow the usual fantasy patterns. The setting is fairly original. The characters are deeply flawed and at times hideously frustrating but also awesome. The world has a history as stunning in depth and bredth as anything Malazan. It may not be your cup of tea, but if you like it, you may REALLY like it.

If you've been into fantasy for a while, you won't find anything in The First Law that you haven't seen before, albeit better written than most. Bakker, on the other hand, will go places you probably haven't been.


but in the end, read both.


- Abyss, over here on the other side of the fence.

[Cause]

Prince of Nothing. No contest. Gritty realism, excellent world building, most unique magic system.

I personally could not enjoy the first law.

[amphibian]

I'd get them both and prepare for different reading experiences. Even if you don't like one series, you've still read a landmark in modern SF.

[Hocknose]

I'm glad this has sparked a little bit of a debate. It's interesting how people have such drastically different opinions of the books. It seems that everyone apart from Abyss* is on one side of the fence or the other.

To be honest after reading peoples comments I think I will read both series' in the end, so the one I read first will be down to price...bit skint at the moment!!!

*oh and amphibian

This post has been edited by Hocknose: 21 July 2010 - 02:17 PM

[jaysen]

Though I have not read The Prince of Nothing series, or any Bakker work for that matter, I would strongly recommend The First Law trilogy.
Abercrombie's writing style is simple but descriptive. The story seems the most believable out of most of the fantasy novels I've read in that there are no imaginary forces working to pull the characters out of fatal incursions.
Though some characters seem one-dimensional, many have full depth.
It makes for a great read.
Again, I can not compare it to Bakker's work but I will recommend The First Law trilogy.

[Varen]

I agree with Abyss on this one, I've enjoyed both of the series'.

Abercrombies books are more "fun" and while still can be a bit dark its much easier going than Bakkers stuff.

But Bakkers books are worth the effort, but there is an awful lot going on and I found it a bit hard to keep track everybody(Even more so than in the Malazan books)

I would read the First law ones first just because most likely you will get through them much faster than the prince of nothing!

[Bauchelain the Evil]

I read them both and I really liked both.

Abercrombie has some interesting charcters( Glokta and Logen stand to mind), knows how to write fights and battles, knows how to write some violent things yet make them look funny and likes to subvert tropes. I strongly reccomend him.

But Bakker, ah Bakker. It's true it seems to be a "either you love it or you hate it" kind of thing but really, for me, if Erikson didn't exist the Prince of Nothing would be the best fantasy out there. It's a dark, extremely original world full with great ideas and, as Abyss said, different. The philosophizing and musings can put you off and the book are somewhat slow( but always end with a bang) but really, read them.

[Ulrik]

Both. For me its top of modern fantasy...

Abercrombie is more "user friendly", his storytelling is great and black humour cute:)

Bakker is more complicated, difficult to enter, but his world is complex, ideas pretty unique and characters greatly dark grey.

[Tarcanus]

Prince of Nothing by a long shot.

Abercrombie is just as others have described him - simple. The characters are obvious archetypes that he seems to make a blatant attempt at subverting at some point. The second book itself in unrewarding with a plot that goes nowhere. Glokta, while having some excellent moments in character growth, is just one huge lesson in reading a character that bitches incessantly. Logen is the definition of deus ex machina (for reasons you'd find out when/if you read). The writing itself is also simple with little challenge.


For me, the only amusing parts had to do with the Northerners and their little band of misfits.


Prince of Nothing, on the other hand, delivers plot, clever characters(beyond Esmi, I still dislike her, though even that is a response to a character and not the bland 'bluh' I felt when reading First Law), and excellent writing. The only mark against it that I would give is that Bakker can get heavy handed with the philosophical moments, but then again, we are on an Erikson forum, haha.

[Chance]

First of all I'm in the prince of nothing is greatly overvalued camp...so first law it is (which while not perfect at least entertains)

Quote

The only mark against it that I would give is that Bakker can get heavy handed with the philosophical moments, but then again, we are on an Erikson forum, haha.

The quote illustrates why prince of nothing ain't as or even good at all, Bakker is very heavy handed with many things and the originality tend to be in the eye of the beholder, I certainly found less then most it seems. But he is a good writer probably better then Abercrombie and both got some great characters to despise however in the first law they are also entertaining and even likeable.

This post has been edited by Chance: 21 July 2010 - 06:35 PM

[Euler]

First law! I found these books more entertaining and more enjoyable to read then the prince of nothing book, he has better characters in my opinion then from what I have seen of bakker. Now I have only read the first book in bakkers series (still undecided if I should read the other books) and thought it so so, there is not one likeable character in that book and I found it hard to read about esmenet and achamian etc... for example esmenet didnt advance the plot anything in my mind (though I understand she get more important in later books). Logen and Glokta and the other northerners in First law on the other are fun and more interesting to read about.

This post has been edited by Euler: 21 July 2010 - 07:09 PM

[polishgenius]

As has been said, Abercrombie's more accessible, but Bakker more ambitious. It can be a chore to get through the PoN books, but for me Abercrombie's style starts to get a little samey after a while, I have to take breaks either way.
And The Judging Eye, the first in the sequel series to Prince of Nothing, is a good step up from what came before, toning down the emoness and overly rambling philosophising and tautening the plot, whereas while Best Served Cold tells a slightly different sort of story than The Blade Itself, it doesn't really move the game on much. So I'm anticipating Bakker's next more.

Both of them are capable of being extraordinarily grim - Abercrombie leavens it with humour but I wouldn't say the overall sentiment of Bakker is any more so than Abercrombie. KJ Parker leaves both of them standing in that respect anyway from what I've read of her/him/it/them...

[Eddie Dean]

Havn't read Prince of Nothing, but First Law is top notch. Great characterization, humor, action, etc. Very, very enjoyable reading. The only thing to know is that book 1 starts off kind of slow, but by the end of it, the action picks up and doesn't stop.

[Coco with marshmallows]

depends on what other stuff you've read.

Having read a lot of fantasy, I found first law to be amusing as it deliberately dicked around with some of the main fantasy archetypes (Hero, wizard, barbarian, guardsman, etc.)

In an avoiding spoilers kind of way, having just read a history book about the period of time that Prince of Nothing is obviously based on, I actually found it to be the more predictable read.

[HoosierDaddy]

Read the first 2 PoN books back to back, and got started on the third in under a week or so. I got bored during the third and moved along. Have come back to it and am enjoying it. Perhaps not books to be read in massive sessions and back to back.

First Law, on the otherhand, is the opposite. I very much enjoyed reading them in a couple of weeks.

Both are good for different reasons, so I'd imagine you'll end up reading both at some point in time.