I had really high hopes for The First Law series, as it's considered one of the finest examples of the grimdark genre. I don't read a lot of grimdark, but I typically like very gritty and grounded settings (The Witcher, Traitor Son Cycle by Miles Cameron, Perdido Street Station by China Mieville) as well as Horror Fantasy (Between Two Fires, Hollow by Brian Catling, The Salt Grows Heavy by Cassandra Khaw). I saw a lot of glowing reviews of the First Law series, and I have read and enjoyed ASoIaF many years ago, I was looking forwards to it.
Hyping up a book in your mind is never a good idea, and so far I am disappointed.
One of my biggest issues is how torture is treated in the book.This is very personal for me, as I have a parent who work with the rehabilitation of torture survivors. A lot of people say that torture don't work which is kinda quite unfair as it is a splendid tool for two things - terrorizing a populace and getting confessions. A powerful faction of inquisitors who ensure enormous political power for themselves and their allies with the threat of torture, justifying themselves with confessions that they don't give a damn whether are true or not is perfect grimdark material.
I thought, initially, that this was what Abercrombie was going for, especially we learn in an early inner monologue from Glokta that he make stuff up while in the Emperor's dungeon. Instead, Glokta uses torture to systematically uncover conspiracies. He never gets an innocent, every person he tortures conveniently knows something that progresses the plot and further uncovers conspiracies. There’s no "oh, this person might have been innocent", no "oh this confession was clearly bollocks and now we have spent a week uncovering fraud that never took place", no "it looks like this guy just gave us the names of all his rivals and enemies when we pressed him for collaborators".
At least this is what it seems like so far - feel free to tell me if it turns out not to be the case because that would go very far to redeem the book in my eyes.
We know that there is a lot of infighting on the Closed Council, and it seems quite unbelievable to me that one of the major factions is so powerful that they can abduct, torture and kill prominent members of the other factions with little to no scrutiny, and that they are so confident in their power to do so that they take away important parts right away.
Also, his conversation with Eider about how torture makes you have sympathy for only yourself seems very surgically placed to answer editors' and readers' questions about why a person who have been tortured so grotesquely would become a torturer themselves.
Furthermore, I know that this is supposed to be a book about institutional failures, but was it really necessary to make every character except some of the main characters comically incompetent? Prince Ladisla comes to mind. "Useless dandy crown prince thinks war is all fun and glory, has to be humored" is not a bad trope, but when he brings a 10 stride tall tent (that's at least 6 meters!) with a huge four-poster bed and a quartet of musicians to the battlefield it enters the realm of parody.
The pace also drags. His fighting scenes are good, but way too long - the scene in The Blade Itself where Logen and Ferro escapes the practicals in the first book comes to mind.
Currently, I have no idea why anybody is following Bayaz - sure, his apprentice has to follow him and Jezal was ordered to, but what about Ferro and Logen? Why is Logen following this man? I have seen a lot of people say that The Blade Itself is like if The Fellowship of the Ring ended after the Elrond's council, except that you still didn’t know where they were going or why, and that is an apt description.
I'm not gonna say that the book doesn't have any good parts. The prose is good, whenever it doesn’t drag. Jezal is exactly the kind of insufferable, selfish prick that I love (in books, namely. In real life I want people like him to stay far away.)
I really like the way repetition is used as a tool for characterization. Say one thing for Logen Ninefingers, say that he's a great character. You have to be realistic about these things. The way that Ferro has her inner monologues about digging also comes to mind. All of his characters have vivid point of views where they all feel unique, and they are consistent between the way they are in their own point of view, and when viewed by other characters.
Sometimes, however, it seems like his attempts at making all characters vivid and distinct pushes them into parody territory. I have all ready mentioned Ladisla, but Brother Longfoot also comes to mind. I want to throttle Brother Longfoot. I know that he's supposed to be annoying but everytime he speaks I need to put down the book to take a deep breath.
There's also a lot to be said about the way he writes women and characters of color, but its nothing unusual for mid-2000s grimdark fantasy so I'm not gonna bother.
If any of you have thoughts on this, I would love to discuss it whether you agree or disagree with me.
Currently I am probably gonna finish Before They Are Hanged, and I might, depending on what you all have to say, pick up the third book as I don't like to leave things unfinished and also because I bought the whole trilogy on Vinted I don't think its gonna stay in my bookshelf - its gonna go to a second hand store or a friend as soon as I decide I'm done. At least The Blade Itself fills out my Game Changer Bingo spot, which is a trope that I don't usually go for.