[Tes'thesula]

Prince of Nothing, again, by a long shot.

Ambercrombie tends to leave me feeling unfulfilled and unsatisfied, Bakker, begging for more.

[QuickTidal]

Okay. I should elaborate.

The Prince Of Nothing...Book 1...I was enthralled for almost the entire thing. It really knocked my socks off in the originality dept...it was when I got to book two that I REALLY got put off. It was a much harder slog with that book, and his treatment of female characters (mostly poor treatment) was really upsetting to me. He had no strong female characters. Call Esme strong if you like but she was still a character that was tossed around and bullied. It was..offputting to say the least. I've never given the Warrior Prophet a second chance. 100 pages was all I could stomach.

Note: for the arguement that this is based on basically the Crusades and was a difficult time for women....perhaps I could introduce you to a woman named Eleanor of Aquitane...a woman who helped to shape the destinies of not just one country, but two. A strong, definitive woman from that same era. so don't tell me that an ancient era can't have powerful women who aren't wives of whores.

So my feeling are based on all of book 1 and a bit of book two....so perhaps I am not the best judge.

that said, I find Abercrombie is quite enjoyable all the time.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 July 2010 - 11:49 PM

[Hocknose]

Thanks again for all the input everyone, it's most appreciated.

As I said before after reading all your comments I'm going to definitely read both.

Just managed to get a brand new (slightly damaged) copy of "The Blade Itself" for £3.60 on ebay. Looks like it will be "The First Law" first!!!

[Ember]

I read the first Bakker book... beautifully written, he has quite a command of language... but I found it quite tedious. I didn't feel anything for his characters and I didn't bother with the second book.

[Pallol One Eye]

I'm on the other side of the fence with Abyss on this one. Loved both series.

[Use Of Weapons]

+1 for the 'loved em both' camp. Which I prefer would depend on which I had read most recently.

[haroos]

Hocknose, on 21 July 2010 - 11:57 AM, said:

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).

the first law is the greyest series i can think of, and it's great.
btw, when you read about "wise old magicians" you may believe it, but realy ?

bayaz is truly a "wise old magician".

prince of nothing is a terrible series, i can;t understand all the hype about this overdone shock-treatment series .
a terrible waste of time, a pseudo-intellectual series by a writer who is ashamed of writing fantasy.

This post has been edited by haroos: 22 July 2010 - 01:10 PM

[Abyss]

haroos, on 22 July 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

... prince of nothing is a terrible series, i can;t understand all the hype about this overdone shock-treatment series .
a terrible waste of time, a pseudo-intellectual series by a writer who is ashamed of writing fantasy.

I think you have Bakker mixed up with Goodkind.



I will add that Best Served Cold, Abercrombie's fourth book set in the same universe and loosely connected to The First Law tril', is, Malazan aside, probably my favourite fantasy book i've read in the last year or so.

[haroos]

Abyss, on 22 July 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

haroos, on 22 July 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

... prince of nothing is a terrible series, i can;t understand all the hype about this overdone shock-treatment series .
a terrible waste of time, a pseudo-intellectual series by a writer who is ashamed of writing fantasy.

I think you have Bakker mixed up with Goodkind.



I will add that Best Served Cold, Abercrombie's fourth book set in the same universe and loosely connected to The First Law tril', is, Malazan aside, probably my favourite fantasy book i've read in the last year or so.

the trilogy was excellent in all ways.
but the ending was so depressing ... i never thought i would be a guy that needed good to win.
i think i'll wait a few more books before buying the next books of that world.

[Fist Gamet]

Prince of Nothing wins hands down. Just my two cents

[RodeoRanch]

First Law! I absolutely fucking hated the Bakker series.

[Ember]

Hrm, maybe I'll try the Bakker books again. I know I have the first one kicking around somewhere...

[Werthead]

Interesting comparison, as both are forerunners of the current 'dark', 'gritty' fantasy mileu (which is starting to get a bit old now, to be honest) but both are also very different.

The First Law is the more consistently successful of the two series. The Blade Itself doesn't deviate from the standard fantasy template, even though the characters are strong. Then right at the end Abercrombie hints his world is more complex than it first appears. This process continues through Book 2 until we get to Book 3, where the author is undercutting reader expectations at every turn and delivers a series of revelations at the end which are clever, logical and exceedingly hilarious. Last Argument of Kings is, for me, the finest concluding volume to an epic fantasy series since The Return of the King, as it never chickened, sold or wimped out. Best Served Cold is also excellent, but it does suffer a little from attitude fatigue. Everything always goes wrong in Abercrombie's world and by the end of BSC that attitude was getting a little too familiar. However, give yourself a break between the trilogy and BSC and you should be fine.

The Prince of Nothing and Aspect-Emperor series by Bakker are much weightier and aiming at a far higher goal. They're talking about weightier themes like faith, belief, religion, various philosophies about violition and the soul, and are written with more developed prose than Abercrombie. Bakker's prose does occasionally turn purple and you can make a viable drinking game out of how many times he uses the phrase, "Death came swirling down," often when it's not really appropriate. However, he doesn't overdo the philosophy stuff too much, probably not as much as Erikson when he really gets going, and has a lot of intrigue, character development and does kick-ass battles and magical duels. His worldbuilding is astonishing. When fully developed, Earwa is in the batting to become the most convincing secondary world since Middle-earth, with reams of convincing history and sociology. He also has a fantastic magic system (several, in fact). Lots of people talk about Sanderson's skill with magic systems, but I think Bakker's are superior.

The biggest problem Bakker has is that his work is pitiless and often cruel. Abercrombie can be, but he also has dark humour, some moments of companionship and so on to lighten the mood. Bakker doesn't have that. His world is unrelentingly bleak and the story merciless. His characters are impressive, but somewhat remote. Only Cnaiur and Achamian really come to life and become knowable as characters, and both are more figures of pity than admiration or respect. You may also come to actively hate Kellhus, as a lot of readers do. Bakker treats his female characters like dirt almost to the point of misogyny, which can be disturbing. Abercrombie somewhat underserves his female characters in the trilogy but puts them front and centre in BSC and really makes them work.

At his best, Bakker is better than Abercrombie, but his best moments are mixed in with lots of questionable decisions and writing elements. At his worst he is far less enjoyable, but I find his good moments to be worth the struggle.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 23 July 2010 - 12:02 PM

[Salt-Man Z]

Now I actually want to pick up both of these...

[Werthead]

I always liked Abercrombie's own assessment of what he writes like:

Quote

"A bit like David Eddings, except my characters swear and occasionally shit themselves."

Slightly selling himself short

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 21 July 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

Okay. I should elaborate.

The Prince Of Nothing...Book 1...I was enthralled for almost the entire thing. It really knocked my socks off in the originality dept...it was when I got to book two that I REALLY got put off. It was a much harder slog with that book, and his treatment of female characters (mostly poor treatment) was really upsetting to me. He had no strong female characters. Call Esme strong if you like but she was still a character that was tossed around and bullied. It was..offputting to say the least. I've never given the Warrior Prophet a second chance. 100 pages was all I could stomach.

Note: for the arguement that this is based on basically the Crusades and was a difficult time for women....perhaps I could introduce you to a woman named Eleanor of Aquitane...a woman who helped to shape the destinies of not just one country, but two. A strong, definitive woman from that same era. so don't tell me that an ancient era can't have powerful women who aren't wives of whores.

So my feeling are based on all of book 1 and a bit of book two....so perhaps I am not the best judge.

that said, I find Abercrombie is quite enjoyable all the time.

First of all the time period you use in your comparison is wrong. Secondly Eleanor of Aquitaine was a strong women in her own right? She was the most eligible bride in all of Europe but that is hardly a power in her own right. It helps being born a duchess don't you think. She wielded more power as the wife of the king of France and then the wife of the king of england. Comparing her to a prostitute is absurd. Without giving to much away women in the series do come to wield power but much like Eleanor seldom because of their own merit. Secondly what matters the time period, yes women were treated like shit in our past ages, some still are today in countries like Saudia Arabia. Some authors like Erikson choose to have every second soldier in the Malazan Army a women (something I personally find ridiculous) and others like Bakker go the other route. I personally enjoy Bakkers route as for me it creates a gritty and realistic take on what i imagine life in his world is like. I also think his handling of slaves is excellent. Esmi's powerlessness is a major theme of her character and a very important plot point throughout the books as it shapes her realtionships with the world, achamian and Kellhus.

@PolishGenius

Quote

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...

If your complimenting K J Parker please dont. I regret every book of his/hers I have ever bought.

[Harvester]

Huhm, I don't know about Bakker, yet. I mean, his world is really fascinating, but the people populating his world are so dry and unlikable it hurts. I hope Drusas Achamian won't die, because he's my only link and that's not even saying much, for he's only one damn, whiny old sorcerer.

I have to say, however, that Bakker's magic system is simply awesome. When the Imperial Saik sung their unearthly song, I was ... grinning.

[polishgenius]

Harvester, on 26 July 2010 - 10:18 AM, said:

for he's only one damn, whiny old sorcerer.

Three of my favourite characters in fantasy are whiny old men...

Akka is one of them. Fiddler and Sam Vimes being the others. It's a grand tradition of the genre...

[Harvester]

Sure, but he is my only link to the world, it wouldn't hurt to drop in someone else with somewhat likable traits.

[goldmill]

I haven't read Bakker yet (it is on my to read list) but I'm a huge fan of Abercrombie. Personally, he is in my top five authors right now.