Scan barcode
A review by frasersimons
Last Argument of Kings by Joe Abercrombie
dark
mysterious
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
This didn't feel like Grimdark until maybe the book's last quarter. It is always concerned with subverting expectations from the genre, but Grimdark usually denotes a lack of agency and grey to no morality. In the first two books, most of the characters have a distinct character arc, and then in this book, only this one is lack of agency conjured (somewhat in a deus ex machina manner).
It isn't entirely a problem. But it does create two pretty distinct issues in this installment: much worse pacing than the first two and no character growth, merely the end of their arc acting as it. This is far less satisfying. There is a point to withholding such catharsis, of course. The issue is that it must be more interesting than what you are subverting. I also could have lived without the only canon queer character being forced into straight sex. Again. It may fit the setting, yet it is also the only representation in the book. Without contrast, there is rarely something compelling to lead the reader by; at least, that was the case for me. We also use a bit of musical chairs in each book to see which character has a boring storyline. This time, however, a few of the characters are sitting instead of just one. There is a bit too much redundant exposition for my taste as well.
Prose wise, this felt like the worst one too. A character will say or do something and then think exactly what they just did, as if you couldn’t figure it out. He hacked at the man exhaustively. _he was getting so tired_. Yeah, I know, that’s what exhaustively means. I did read them all back to back. It’s possible I was just exasperated by the third.
The puppeteer is revealed was alright, though. Characters learn about what kind of world it is, similarly, along with the reader. It's just that by the time this was happening, I hadn't connected with most of the characters in any meaningful way--nor the world. So, I was left with a slow cap and a shrug. When nothing much matters because of morality, why should you care, as the reader, right? I expect that everyone will be brought low simply because that’s not what happens in traditional fantasy. That's the problem underdeveloped Grimdark has. When divorced from philosophical underpinnings, it all is rather pointless. Entertaining. But it's still meaningless. With commercial fiction like this, it still gets a pass. It was just trying to entertain, and it was entertaining sometimes. The real problem is fanbases giving authors inflated hype and readers' expectations—the king of Grimdark (Abercrombie)—the king of Fantasy (Sanderson). What it means is you're famous, readable, and, perhaps, slightly left of center at most. I will say this is better than Sanderson, at least. It isn't wholly sterile and soulless formulaic plotting, and it has something much better thematically to communicate, too: capitalism terrible. Power bad. People are mostly also bad. I mean, preaching to the choir. Maybe if you needed convincing it was mind altering.
Say one thing for Logan Ninefingers, say that I never have to hear that g damn line again, thank god.
It isn't entirely a problem. But it does create two pretty distinct issues in this installment: much worse pacing than the first two and no character growth, merely the end of their arc acting as it. This is far less satisfying. There is a point to withholding such catharsis, of course. The issue is that it must be more interesting than what you are subverting. I also could have lived without the only canon queer character being forced into straight sex. Again. It may fit the setting, yet it is also the only representation in the book. Without contrast, there is rarely something compelling to lead the reader by; at least, that was the case for me. We also use a bit of musical chairs in each book to see which character has a boring storyline. This time, however, a few of the characters are sitting instead of just one. There is a bit too much redundant exposition for my taste as well.
Prose wise, this felt like the worst one too. A character will say or do something and then think exactly what they just did, as if you couldn’t figure it out. He hacked at the man exhaustively. _he was getting so tired_. Yeah, I know, that’s what exhaustively means. I did read them all back to back. It’s possible I was just exasperated by the third.
The puppeteer is revealed was alright, though. Characters learn about what kind of world it is, similarly, along with the reader. It's just that by the time this was happening, I hadn't connected with most of the characters in any meaningful way--nor the world. So, I was left with a slow cap and a shrug. When nothing much matters because of morality, why should you care, as the reader, right? I expect that everyone will be brought low simply because that’s not what happens in traditional fantasy. That's the problem underdeveloped Grimdark has. When divorced from philosophical underpinnings, it all is rather pointless. Entertaining. But it's still meaningless. With commercial fiction like this, it still gets a pass. It was just trying to entertain, and it was entertaining sometimes. The real problem is fanbases giving authors inflated hype and readers' expectations—the king of Grimdark (Abercrombie)—the king of Fantasy (Sanderson). What it means is you're famous, readable, and, perhaps, slightly left of center at most. I will say this is better than Sanderson, at least. It isn't wholly sterile and soulless formulaic plotting, and it has something much better thematically to communicate, too: capitalism terrible. Power bad. People are mostly also bad. I mean, preaching to the choir. Maybe if you needed convincing it was mind altering.
Say one thing for Logan Ninefingers, say that I never have to hear that g damn line again, thank god.