A little boring, a little good, a little bit of Monica in my life. Patreon: / jamestullos Twitter: / fortullos My other channel: / ghostbuster274 Donate: paypal.me/JamesCTullos?locale... goodreads: / james-tullos
I really think starting from book one is the way to go with this universe tbh, there are SO many bits of context that make the later books stand stronger.
As a massive Joe Abercrombie fan, it was interesting to hear you perspective. I read the first law trilogy and the standalones in order, concluding with the age of madness trilogy. But I get how stepping into the world with a little hatred seems jarring and confusing. Personally, the first law books are my favorite of his trilogies, and then some of the standalones. The age of madness felt like a reward for us mega fans, not an actually place for a first time read, because literally everything in a little hatred is a consequence of what the first law characters did. I also think you're missing out by starting a book in this series that doesn't star Logen Ninefingers or Glokta.
The themes come together in later books in the series but in general I feel the standalones are probably his best novels and the original series are best for interesting themes but his writing and prose have improved a lot. I don't think this series is the best place to start as the first novel in this series is mostly setting up the time that's passed since the original series.
Abercrombie tends to write a lot of characters into his story, although having read all his books save the last book of the Age of Madness, I'd say it's very easy to set apart who are the main characters. There is never just one, and I found that really refreshing. A lot of things that didn't impress you seem like stuff that could have to do with just personal preference, so I won't go into them. Although, the reason behind the wars he writes is neither simple nor weak. Age of Madness isn't too explicit about it since that was the main topic in the First Law. Not to spoil, there are forces who control noblemen and simple people and who profit from those wars. He goes very in depth about the ways those forces, well, force their will on everyone. I always tend to read any book series in chronilogical order, precisely to avoid not being able to completely understand the story, like it seems you did in this video. The book could have been more standalone, and I assume you didn't know much about Aberceombie's style going into it, since most of them aren't. Personally, I find them to be amazing taken all together.
90% of my caring about this book was because the characters are direct descendants of characters I already care about, and the setting is a world I like and care about. Things only get moving in the second book, but on the whole this trilogy is weaker than the first one, and weaker than the standalones for me. I felt the characters were less impactful, and one thing he did in the original trilogy was playing around with the tropes in a fun way, and that never really happened here. Real shame to have this book as a first read of his though, not that the others are perfect, but they're dark and funny and has some great moments.
I just don't think these books are meant to be read in anything but chronological order. It seems almost false advertising to sell them as distinct trilogies, and the standalones especially probably do nothing for a reader who hasn't read the first trilogy. It smells like publisher meddling to me (i.e. trilogy sell cuz lotr lol), because if you read the "trilogies" back to back it's pretty clear Joe just made a 6 book series with a break to write some excellent standalones that provide detail and closure to the first three books.
I read the first book of the First Law trilogy and haaaated it. Not because it was outright bad, but because it was ALMOST good at so many points but constantly took hard left turns into being mediocre or bad.
There are a bunch of references to First Law that will make the experience more interesting but you skipped those so you missed a lot of the interesting pieces
For both of Abercrombie’s trilogies, the appeal of the story is in the whole trilogy. I had hoped he would do a better first entry into the story this time around, and he did slightly better, but A Little Hated was still no where near as good as the rest.
The major failing of the Age of Madness for me is that it utterly falls apart if you have no knowledge of the previous books. They don't work on their own.
Abercrombie's stories are extremely slow rolling. His first book "the blade itself" left me thinking, "well that was fun, but what was the point?". It's not until the third book where I could start to comprehend the plot he was laying out. The real star of the first trilogy is San den glokta (savenes father) who is probably the best character ever written. The trilogy you are reading is also a slow roller, but not quite as slow, unfortunately it doesn't have a character quite as good as glokta.
Doesn’t sound like you’ll read the first trilogy. But if you do and still don’t like it I think this series just isn’t to your taste then. I assumed you’d like it since I think it’s got great writing great characters especially first trilogy. I think first laws up there with asoif
Spoilers ahead: Oh man I couldn’t disagree with this video more. It’s odd that you chose to read a little hatred first. I suppose it works on its own, but it really is a SEQUEL trilogy. There are so many characters, relationships, places, and events that you’d know a lot about if you had more context. Before I got to know the characters in a little hatred well, the stakes were still there for me because I knew how their misfortune would effect other characters I already know and love. But as the story progressed I ended up really liking most of them. Like Orso, Savine, Clover, Rikke and Leo. I honestly can take or leave Vick and Gunnar but I didn’t hate them or anything, they both had interesting backstories so I was still invested. But things like Orso and Savine being half siblings is something you would already know before even starting the book as opposed to finding out when Savine does. King Jezal and wonderfuls deaths probably didn’t effect you at all either because neither of those two characters really get to shine in this book. I think Jezal shines in “before they are hanged” and “last argument of kings” most, and wonderful in “the heroes” obviously. I also think knowing who Bayaz and Yoru are really help you understand what’s happening. Or what’s yet to happen.
It's not really a great starting point, If you havent read the earlier books you wouldn't even know who the main villain of the series is even though that character is in the book. Technically A Little Hatred is the start of a new trilogy but, I'd imagine reading it without having read the previous six books would cause you to miss all the subtle political maneuvering that is happening. Many of the secondary characters have been POVs in previous books so you would know their motivations. Similar to the Lord of the Rings, the trilogies are more like three parts of one book than three separate books.
I’m just gonna say that I totally get why you wouldn’t care much about the war storyline if you haven’t read any of the other books. The reason I was so invested is because by that point I genuinely cared about the North and I already knew and cared about the characters because I’ve known some of them since book 1. To me it’s a mistake to read this without the rest of the series.
First law was a very fun series to go through though yea I do have to admit age of madness was a bit underwhelming. The story definitely loses a lot if you are not familiar with first law originally, so that may have been a bit of why James’s impression was less than impressed
For the first law series this is the weakest and probably least recommended entry. Regardless of labeling this is a sequel to the first law and the standalone novels that are between. Would recommend just reading fron the beginning.
I read his shattered sea trilogy and it was real good and would definitely recommend...tried to read some of his other books and i didnt like them that much
A little hatered is a book-length prolog. The plot starts abut 10 pages before the end, and the series' structure seems to follow First Law pretty closely. Yeah, I think Abercrombie is a bit overrated. He writes ok books that would, in my oppinion, benefit from more compact editing choises.
Interesting that you say "boring" because it actually moves at a much faster pace than the first trilogy. Although the downside is that it comes off much more like a GOT ripoff than his earlier work. I didn't really get bogged down until the beginning of Wisdom of Crowds when it takes the "grimdark" aspect to the next level. Also, as I'm sure others have said, this is pretty similar to starting Sanderson with Allow of Law. Interestingly, I would say first era Mistborn is pretty similar in tech to this world as they have factories and canals, just not gunpowder, and the mode of dress is pretty similar.
Reading this without first reading the previous entries in the series is like having sex without foreplay. It can be done but it will be a vastly inferior experience
You really need to read the other books set in the world of the First Law to understand this series. Certain aspects of the world are explained in previous entries. These aspects are often extremely important. Many of the characters carry over as well. I would say you need to look into series you’re going to read a little more before you read them.
I read “The First Law” trilogy, and while the prose was very good, I found almost all the characters (except maybe for Logen Ninefingers and Colonel West) rather unlikeable. It ended up a depressing read.
Well we got what was intended out of the book I suppose, it is depressing by nature. It’s made for certain people who enjoy that kind of story, but it is still able to keep people who prefer other types interested all the same
I read the first law trilogy and it was ok, ended pretty poorly imo. The first of his standalone was soooo boring though. Took me months to get thru the audiobook, and if I would've read it then it would've been a dnf.
I'm really torn about this one... I mean... Is a book good if it isn't able to stand alone. I get the they share the same world thing, but I also nearly started with this book... And now I'm wandering if I should start first law at all. For me a book should be a standalone, satisfying story. Very rarely did I find one that had a great payoff in the second or third book and those usually happen in mystery thriller books, where every book has its own mystery to solve and can be left unsolved only for a big reveal in the last book.
This book is like the 7th in the first law world. This is a horrible place to start imo. A big part of this book is knowing whats going on and the characters past history. The book is written assuming the reader have read the first law trilogy and the stand alones. A lot of the secondary characters in this book were main characters before and we've experience their story so If you don't read all the books that came before you are missing out on a lot.
That’s stupid in my opinion. “Is a book good if it isn’t able to stand on its own” wtf like yes. Obviously. You wouldn’t just hop into book 13 of wheel of time and call it a bad book because you have no idea what anything is. This is the 7th book in this series, 8th if you include sharp ends. People think you can start with it because you can follow it with no context, sure. But that doesn’t mean you should. You miss so much by skipping the first 6 (7 with sharp ends) books. There are deaths in a little hatred that gutted me emotionally, and to know that because those characters didn’t really shine in this book specifically, for people who started here, they didn’t really care because they didn’t understand who that person was. It’s a shame really. If you think a book should be a single standalone story even if it’s in a series then the first law isn’t for you at all. After I had read the first novel in the first law series “the blade itself” if some one had asked me what it was about I wouldn’t have been able to tell them. It’s not even really a story yet. You’re just following and getting to know really damned good characters. The actual story doesn’t really pick up till before they are hanged, and even then you still don’t really know what’s happening. But there are so many seeds that get planted it literally isn’t even funny. It isn’t till book 3 where there’s like 10 twists and the story knocks your socks off. At least it did for me. If you want stand alones tho there are stand alones that take place after the first trilogy but before the second. They’re all pretty good. Release order really is the way to go with this series and anyone who says otherwise is kind of just wrong. Unless you want to ruin it for yourself I suppose. To each their own.
The second trilogy is definitely much weaker than the first one, I dropped it after 2nd book. In contrast to the first trilogy, the characters are much weaker, especially in terms of humour (G) and likeability (9F). The more nihilistic look at characters works better in standalones, where although interesting I don't care about what happens to them, even if they are interesting characters. Because of this, the 2nd trilogy's characters are not strong enough to carry a series.
There are a bunch of references to First Law that will make the experience more interesting but you skipped those so you missed a lot of the interesting pieces
