Friday, 15 August 2008

What THEY Said Over the Last Month

High time for my periodic self-indulgent sado-massochistic trawl through the dark corners of the interweb. I can't help it. It's an addiction. So without further ado ... Writer Bill Ward had a look at The Blade Itself:

"at heart it's a High Fantasy with a hardboiled, Sword & Sorcery attitude. The pace, the command of voice and dialog, and the strong characterization all make this a series to watch."

He followed it up with a main course of Before They are Hanged:

"Questions are answered and new ones raised, characters push and pull against one another, glimpses of plots are dangled with skill before the reader, and the whole conspires to keep the pages greedily turning - in short, everything is done well and will have fans rushing to get their hands on Last Argument of Kings, the concluding volume of The First Law."

Dread Pirate Terje was one among that very rush. I'm not sure if he's really a pirate, or what dark acts have earned him the prefix 'dread' or not, but you have to appreciate his Marxist analysis of The First Law:

"In Marxist terms, the superstructure is transformed, while the base remains the same. Or, perhaps more precisely, the base remains the same, as does the superstructure, but the relation between these become apparent to the main characters, and thus to the readers - the illusion of ideology (the Marxist term refering to the ideas and philosophies that legitimize and shroud that the system is, ultimately, based on power - according to Marxist theory, democracy and liberalism are part of the ideology of capitalism) is shed and shredded. In the end Last Argument of Kings, while magnificently brutal, morbidly fun, recklessly fascinating, and at times awesomely inspiring, was too fucken dark for my taste, so I dock it about half a point or so for that. 9.0/10."

9/10 even after the half point deduction? I reckon I can live with that. Just. An insightful look at the whole trilogy from occasional visitor here, Elena at 500 pages and a bottle of wine:

"For every genre staple/cliche that is included, another is pissed upon. There is a near-constant undermining of expectation, both by the standards of fantasy epics and those of literature in general. Another way to summarize the trilogy - mine, in fact - would be: Reservoir Dogs + "Dr Heidegger's Experiment" + The Empire Strikes Back, dropped into post-apocalyptic Middle Earth. As I mentioned initially, this book speaks in the cant of a 21st-century 20-something, hence the inclusion of a Tarantino movie. Well-written, witty, and full of violently poetic descriptions and snarky one-liners, if also littered with more comma splices than bodies (and that's an awful lot, girl)."

I believe it was the Emperor Sigismund who said, "I am the King of Rome, and above grammar." Don't try to limit my genius with your dusty rules, commar fascist! Though it's worth noting she had something of the same 'intellectual admiration yet emotional disappointment' reaction to the ending that I did with No Country for Old Men a couple of weeks back. Thomas L. Martin, meanwhile, reveiewed the book for SFCrowsnest, and the only real problem he had with the 240,000 word monster was that it was just too damn short. Well, alright, rushed and with uneven pacing, but, you know:

"A fourth book to extend the battles and keep the pacing more dramatic may have truly completed the 'First Law' sequence but even as it is they stand as fantastic examples of the best heroic fantasy. In his first three novels, Joe Abercrombie has shown that the road travelled by so many tired and cliched quest novels has not been exhausted. There are other ways to do it without re-treading the old formulae and by populating his complex world with dynamic, immensely imperfect characters Abercrombie has produced a reinvigoration of the genre."

Reinvigorate THAT, motherf*ckers. And finally, kind words on the trilogy as a whole from no lesser light than the star of Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog, would you believe, Felicia Day:

"And boy did this series finish! After reading the third book in the trilogy, I definitely have to say that this is one of my top 10 favorite series of all time. It's that good. The finale pays off all the genre-bending plot twists and crazy left turns that occurred in books one and two, and in a way that will leave you gasping. I could not have looked up from the last 100 pages if you had paid me!"

Who would pay you to do that? Not me, that's for SURE.

Labels: reviews

Monday, 7 July 2008

Innovative-ni-ness

As though Publisher's Weekly's review had burst an internet dam, or were a necromancer invoking the restless corpses of the web community, or were a great king of yore calling his shining cohorts to battle (work with me here), a spate of First Law-related activity this past week.

Like Sergio Leone, whom I try to imitate in all things, let us begin with the good, and work our way steadily towards the ugly, though this time, alas, without the comic talents of Eli Wallach. A review of Last Argument of Kings from Paul at the rather nicely designed and fearsomely titled Blood of the muse (I like it, literary, but violent):

"Last Argument of Kings is the best fantasy novel released so far in 2008 ... Abercrombie brings the trilogy to a rousing and very satisfying conclusion, peppering the novel with incredible battles, grim humor, and many unforeseen twists ... the characters become even more nuanced and complex, fighting hard against the reader's expectations of them. It is as though a new light has been shined upon them, making for stunning transformations."

He awards me 94 out of 100. Have at you now! It's like 94 fingers in the eye for the doubters. John D. Borra has also been reading LAoK at Flowers from the Rubble, and he thought:

"The concluding book of The First Law trilogy could not have been more exhilaratingly, subversively, compulsively delightful. A tired old genre, populated either by the doddering remnants of formerly great writers, or sadly bereft of truly inspired creators, is suddenly fresh again."

Fresh, inspired, and delightful? Oh, don't! Oh, stop! I'm blushing! My face is on fire! Alright, carry on. What do you think of when you picture readers of epic fantasy? My guess is that would vary, but it is extremely unlikely to be this. At all. But the world is jam-packed with surprises, folks, because vintage pin-up model Fleur de Guerre (nom de plume?) has apparently been tearing through the filth, betrayal and carnage that is Last Argument of Kings. No, really, I'm not making this up. My imagination is nothing like that powerful:

"Anyway, suffice to say it is an absolutely cracking read. It's a fantastically well-written series, and the characters are so ... full of character! They have both good and bad sides, and unlike some books, there were no character chapters that I wanted to (or *gasp* did!) skip through. The battle scenes were particularly epic, and suitably bloody. My only niggle is the ending!"

Bah! Dah! We'll forget that last sentence ever happened, shall we? Ably assisted by an overview of the entire trilogy from Australian webzine The Specusphere (although does it have a nationality if it's on the web? A question for another day...):

"In The First Law, UK fantasy writer Joe Abercrombie has produced one of the most impressive first trilogies ever to hit the market. It is remarkable not only because of its brilliantly complex plot and characters, but also because of its fearless investigation of the dark labyrinths of the human condition. Here be no dragons, and hardly a mage or a McGuffin is in sight, either. Instead, we have a blood, sweat and tears tale of the first water ... If you like your fantasy harsh and gritty, can stand a great deal of death and destruction, and if you don't want everything tied up in neat packages with "happy ever after" stamped on them, you must read this trilogy."

See? See? They liked the ending! "But Joe!" I hear you cry, "if your admirers span the entire gamut of persons from vintage pin-ups to ... Australians, from where oh where will the dodgy reviews that we all love so much appear?" Ah, from none other than sometime-absent but long-established internet reviewer Gabe Chouinard, who has some thought-provoking issues with the level of originality displayed in The Blade Itself:

"For all the talk of innovation, The Blade Itself is still generic epic fantasy. While it is a rousing good read, for me it is also a disposable read; the genre equivalent of a few hours spent watching television."

As disposable as time spent watching The Wire, Deadwood, The Sopranos or Battlestar Galactica? Wasted hours indeed, I hang my head in shame...

"In hindsight, I find it difficult to distinguish Abercrombie's characters from other generic epic fantasy characters. Logen Ninefingers could as easily have been the equally-reluctant berserker Barek from David Eddings' Belgariad sequence. Bayaz could just as easily have been any number of mysterious mage figures; making him bald and sarcastic does not make him unique."

Now Gabe's only read the first book, and I'd be interested to see what he made of the whole series. I think if The First Law has any insights to offer it's as a whole. The Blade Itself was always intended to introduce the characters, to set the scene, but also to firmly anchor the trilogy as being part of a familiar brand of epic fantasy in which readers might think they could guess all the outcomes, such that, as the series then later ingeniously flips those notions on their heads and reveals the characters to be other than expected, readers are double shocked and amazed, squealing with delight at the cleverness of the merry dance on which they have been so entertainingly led.

Or perhaps not. It don't work for everyone, that's for sure. But I'd argue the number of people disappointed, dismayed, or even utterly crushed by the ending would seem to support the idea that it's not entirely formulaic. Still, having been underwhelmed by book one, Gabe might well not have the patience for two more doorstoppers. That's fine. And even if he did, he might well consider the whole approach ill-advised, ineffective, or even mildly ham-fisted. Certainly he found the first book 'entirely undistinctive', and is forced to meditate on the shortcomings of the critical community these days:

"And so I wonder... what is it that compels reviewers to laud The Blade Itself as innovative, ground-breaking, and all the rest? I believe reviewers are responding to the surface gloss of The Blade Itself, which is foolhardy. Bloody fights, sarcasm, the "gritty" addition of a few fucks and shits and damns... these are a mere veneer of coolness, not signs of real innovation. And so, when some reviewers use books like Abercrombie's to suggest that epic fantasy has, at last, "grown up", I find myself cringing in dismay."

Exactly what people respond to or not in a book is an area of some fascination for me, as you can imagine. I think the single biggest lesson I've learned since getting into the game (writing, not prostitution) is that the difference in the ways different readers look at a text, the differences in what they expect, what they want, what they value, in every area, are unimaginably vast. But my impression is, when people do respond well to my stuff (the aforementioned John D. Borra above being not untypical), what they find original is the relatively small twists on the familiar, though growing as the series progresses, the sense of humour with which it's delivered, the relatively unpretentious style from the extremely pretentious author, the vivid characters and the emphasis on those characters rather than the world. What you might call relatively basic virtues, really.

I disagree that those things constitute surface gloss, necessarily, that all depends what you're looking for. I disagree also that something needs to be wildly innovative in order to offer something that a lot of readers will find fresh and interesting. Honestly, I think unique-ness can sometimes be a bit over-rated. Much beloved of critics, but perhaps not so much of the great body of readers. You can be unique and still be, for want of a better word, shit. A man with an arse for a face is unique, but I don't know that I'd want to be him. To write an appealing story, I think you need to balance the original with the familiar, and for me, quite small nuances of style and approach can be enough to make some familiar components fascinating all over again, especially if they're components much beloved of the readers in question. Familiarity might repel some readers, but I think it draws far more in, providing you don't get stodgy and boring (don't you dare even think it), creates expectations and allows you to pull tricks that would be impossible on much less familiar ground.

So I'm not sure I'd ever claim that my stuff is particularly groundbreaking, beyond being my own particular take on the classic fantasy trilogy, emphasising my own concerns and trying to be as honest and realistic as possible. To quote myself from an interview, which you'll be surprised to hear I kind of love doing:

"I'd like to think of what I'm doing as standing in relation to Lord of the Rings (and the classic epic fantasy that's been strongly influenced by Tolkien) in the same way as - if I can use a cumbersome extended metaphor - Unforgiven stands in relation to High Noon. A slantwise look at the cliches of the form from a more modern, cynical, realistic perspective, perhaps even a bit of a satirical riff on the form at times, but first and foremost a strong example of the form. I hope that I've got something to say about the ways that good and evil, power and violence are traditionally represented in fantasy, but at the same time I hope that above all what I've written is a cracking fantasy tale, and can be enjoyed purely on that level."

Man, that Abercrombie can turn a phrase. And so when Gabe says, in order to sweeten the bitter pill of criticism:

"Abercrombie has a slick, active style that aids in propelling the reader along. Everything about The Blade Itself is crisp; the dialogue is excellent, the pacing is excellent, the characterization is excellent. In truth, while reading The Blade Itself I enjoyed myself."

I think I probably find most of the praise I'd ever want. In the end, if given the choice, I much prefer things that are good, to things that are original. Both would be best, for sure, but hey...

Either one's something.

Labels: opinion, reviews

Sunday, 6 July 2008

Readers will Mourn

Yes, they will, but not in the way you're thinking, you sarcastic bastards. Publisher's Weekly, organ of the US book trade, has spoken on the subject of Last Argument of Kings. Or will speak, come September:

"The sword & sorcery trilogy that began with The Blade Itself (2007) and Before They Are Hanged (2008) comes to a violent, sardonic and brilliant conclusion. The shaky Union, menaced simultaneously by rampaging Northmen and by Gurkish invaders from the south, now must contend with intrigue and treachery in its capital, Adua. Summoned to play parts in a devastating confrontation between magical forces, conscience-ridden berserker Logen Ninefingers and honest, weary Union commander Colonel West come down from the north to meet painfully self-aware torturer Glokta, revenge-obsessed female warrior Ferro, pliable young adventurer Jezal and scheming, unscrupulous mage Bayaz. All these people are believable, especially as they dabble in grimly convincing magic and struggle to hear their consciences through the roar of carnage and betrayal. Abercrombie is a fresh new talent, presenting a dark view of life with wit and zest, and readers will mourn the end of this vivid story arc."

Dab away your tears, though, friends. There's more darkness, wit and zest where that came from...

Labels: reviews

Thursday, 19 June 2008

Eighty-One

British SF&F Magazine SFX have run a poll of their readers of their 100 favourite SF&F authors. Can't be bothered to post the whole thing, so I'll link to a posting and discussion here on Westeros, where I am occasionally to be found shrilly singing my own praises. As such lists go, and barring a few eyebrow-raisers of the type you always get with public votes, it seems a really good one to my eye. It's certainly tilted towards the commercial end of the spectrum, as you'd expect from a magazine with a broad base of readers, but there are a few more literary/experimental writers in there. There's a pretty good mix of fantasy and sci-fi (I was expecting fantasy to be much less represented, on the whole). There's also a surprisingly strong showing for what you might call classic writers as opposed to recent ones.

But the thing I really wanted to discuss is ...

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M AT 81! WOOOOOOOOOOH! etc.

Very pleased to make it on there at all, in fact, as a pretty new author, especially since it's an honest-to-goodness broad based, relatively commercial sample. Even if that no-talent-hack George Orwell made it on a whole three places higher than me. I mean what the hell's he contributed to literature? 1984? However you cut it that's at least 25 years out of date.

It is a very Brit-o-centric list, as is only proper. I doubt some of the much-loved British writers like Pratchett, Gemmel or Rankin would score so high in a US version, and in terms of newer writers I doubt I'd appear, since I'm still pretty new across the pond, whereas someone like Pat Rothfuss I'm sure would do, since his success there with his first book has been most impressive. It's surprising, in a sense, that there isn't an equivalent publication in the states. The closest they've got, as far as I can tell is ... SFX.

Talking of Brit-o-Centric, you don't get more honest-to-bloody-goodness British than The Bridlington Free Press, news organ of the Yorkshire sea-side since 1859. How it came about, I couldn't say, but they have reviewed The First Law trilogy:

"TWISTED, gripping, inventive, gritty and utterly compelling - think of a positive adjective and Joe Abercrombie's The First Law series deserves it.
It is a feast of brilliantly-developed characters who, despite being a bunch of the most unlikeable creations you could (or rather couldn't) imagine, the reader can almost grow to like as their personas are peeled away through the three books."

You guys do know I'm from Lancashire, right? The strange thing is that I was in Bridlington last summer for the wedding of one of my wife's friends. I actually wrote some of Last Argument of Kings in the loo of the hotel there. Strange coincidences...

Labels: news, reviews

Sunday, 15 June 2008

Hype Malfunction!

Man, what with all these great reviews recently, you can imagine I was starting to feel pretty ground down. Does no-one out there hate my stuff any more? Is there no-one who'll give a brother a kick when he's up? It can be tough getting out of bed when you know there'll be no knives out for you in the senate-house, believe me. So imagine my delight when my weekly (alright, daily) blog-search (alright, hourly) unearthed this little beauty at Bobby's triple zero's book thoughts:

"Every review I've read focuses on how Abercrombie did well by not overly describing the setting and instead focusing on creating vivid characters. This is actually where I disagree the most. To me the characters were cliche. Yes, I said it. Cliche. Let the hate mail commence."

Oh yeah, sweet smarmy. Yes, I said it. Smarmy. Tastes like strawberry jam. I doubt anyone cares enough to actually mail him anything, even me, but one should be careful what one wishes for...

"Predictable. Cliche. Semi-boring. In essence, this is Joe Abercrombie's The Blade Itself. But despite all that I said, it does have potential. After all this is only the first in the series. Maybe the characters will grow in different ways than I predict in the next two. I sincerely hope that Abercrombie proves me wrong."

Hmmm. If I was feeling in a sarcastic frame of mind, I might say something like: "Predictable. Cliche. Semi-boring. In essence, this is Bobby's blog." But everyone knows that I am just so well not sarcastic. And I'm not at all a tiny-minded, bitter little man with an old, dried-up white turd where my heart should be. Well, alright, I am. But I can be charitable on occasion. After all, this is only Bobby's fourth post. Maybe his blog will grow in different ways than I predict in the next two.

In other news, the evil Gollancz hype machine, running as it does on the skulls of stolen orphan children and lubricated by the blood of harmless virgins by that undead arch-hype-sorcerer Simon of Spanton, manifestation of corporate strangulation of all that is good and righteous upon the unsullied, unicorn-infested, emerald fields of the fantasy genre (takes deep breath) has been running overtime again in its efforts to trick the innocent readers of the world into buying Richard Morgan's The Steel Remains. Which I rather liked. At least before all that evil hype got started. Now I am forced to question my own response. Could it be that I TOO was hypnotised by that fiendish puppet-master of the lowest nether pit of publishing?

Well, what I want to know is, if the macabre Gollancz hype-engine is so fricking effective, how the hell did this bad review of my book happen, eh? Eh, Spanton?

EH?

Labels: reviews

Thursday, 12 June 2008

Back from Cornwall

Back from Cornwall. Stayed in a lighthouse. Weather was fantastic. Paddled on the beach. Swam in the sea (cold as f*ck). Even did some body-boarding. Surf's up, dudes, and that. Went to St. Michael's Mount near Penzance, a castle/church/stately home on a great rock that is an island for most of the day. Fascinating, beautiful, but very high. Me and high do not mix well.

I return to find much discussion on the webasphere regarding my books. Without further ado, then. SFSignal have reviewed Before They are Hanged. They were not complimentary:

"Everything that was good in the first book (excellent story, fast-paced action, interesting characters) is honed to a fine edge here."

Only kidding! They were really complimentary!

"I'm not usually a fantasy fan, but Before They Are Hanged is one of the rare books that I didn't want to put down and pulled out to read whenever I could. It's certainly a worth addition to the series and if you like great stories, fantasy or otherwise, pick up this book and the first if you haven't already."

Boo-yah. Actress Felicia Day also read Before They are Hanged. Well, you can't win 'em all, as they say. She did not like it:

"The characterization is fascinating and gripping. Joe Abercrombie really masters the "grey area", where no one is a two-dimensional bad guy, and you're constantly questioning the motivation of people who you thought were on one side or another."

Only kidding! She loved it! Reviews of the first two books from the interestingly titled woodge.com. Bad, bad reviews:

"This was exactly the kind of book I'd hoped it would be. Fun, exciting, violent - a large roster (but not too large) of interesting characters get involved in intersecting story-lines and it's set in a medieval world with all sorts of people and places plus some powerful sorcery. This is sword-and-sorcery at its best."

I'm joking! They were great reviews! Pedro Quaresma read The Blade Itself, and he was not happy:

"I therefore unconditionally recommend this book and this trilogy to any fantasy fan. I sure hope the author continues creating such great quality books."

Got you again. He was very happy. And don't worry Pedro, I will continue to produce books. Their quality? You'll have to be the judges. Author Tim Stretton has finished Before They are Hanged, and been reflecting upon its qualities:

"I will blog much more about Abercrombie later--he is a writer of unusual gifts,"

I am indeed. In fact I once received a fossilised banana from a distant aunt. You won't find many more unusual gifts than that. But he goes on to speak more directly about my work:

"and for anyone who enjoys fantasy his books are a treat. Darkly humorous, dripping with rich characterisation and with great control of voice, Abercrombie is setting the standard for modern fantasy fiction."

Damn straight he is. Damn straight. Stretton goes on to consider The Blade Itself in more detail, and very complimentary he is too. Apart from his rather worrying stated desire to gun me down in the street. Simply another reason, as if any more were needed, never to leave the house.

Labels: reviews

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

What They Said in May 08

It's been a while since I trawled the dank corners of the interweb for opinions about my books. Well, it's been about ten minutes. But it's been a while since I talked to you lot about it. Time to set that straight...

Salvek - no, not a vulcan, but a Frenchman - has been reading the French translation of The Blade Itself to accompany a piece of burned toast, at Fantasy au Petit-Dejeuner. My French (or possibly vulcan) is nowhere near good enough to understand what he might actually have said. Bonus points to anyone who can tell me...

To quote The Usual Suspects, "in ... English ... please." Fellow Fantasy Author Tim Stretton, who has his first commercially published novel, The Dog of the North out later this year (he didn't pay me to say that, I just thought it was good manners), has also been reading The Blade Itself:

"Abercrombie is a real talent. I can't remember enjoying a debut novel so much for years. He understands the tropes of the fantasy genre and is able to subvert them in a way which is both invigorating and respectful of the genre. There isn't--yet--a great deal of plot, but the characters are so compelling that it doesn't matter. He also has a highly entertaining blog which mixes pleasingly ironic self-aggrandisement (at least I assume it's ironic...) with some perceptive observations on writing in the fantasy genre."

Why, that's this blog, you lucky f*ckers! Moving onto Before They are Hanged, SQT has been giving it the once over at her Fantasy and Sci-Fi lovin' Book Review:

"Despite a few critiques, I still think "Before They are Hanged" is a superior book in an outstanding series. Abercrombie has style that I have never really seen before. It's a kind of no-holds-barred, in-your-face fantasy epic that takes all the typical fantasy tropes and says - I'm not going to do what you think I'm going to do, and you're gonna like it."

Yes you will, or your money back, guaranteed! (note that actual money will not in reality be returned under any circumstances). Joe Sherry has also read the second book at Adventures in Reading. He has some interesting points about the old middle-book syndrome, but not in relation to my work, oh no!

"Before They Are Hanged improves upon the vision of the first novel, feels more tightly written (for whatever that means or is worth) and overall *feels* like a stronger novel. It lacks the freshness that can only exist in the opening novel of a series, but it measures up to the promise of the first book. Another fine effort from Abercrombie."

Jessica Strider, from The World's Biggest Bookstore in Toronto has meanwhile completed the trilogy with a read of Last Argument of Kings. It's only a quicky so I'll quote the whole thing:

"The third in the First Law trilogy is not a book you can read alone, you must read the first two to understand the action (and they're great books so what are you waiting for?). Having said that, and in the interest of not posting spoilers I'll simply say: expect surprises. Lots of them. Everyone gets betrayed and no one gets what they deserved... A brilliant book with a completely unexpected and non-traditional ending."

Couldn't have said it better myself. And I'm a writer.

No one cussing off my work this month? Well, not really, so far as I could tell. I guess my stuff just truly must be that good. Feel free to restore the cosmic balance by cussing me in the comments section. I probably won't respond for a while as I'll be away down in Cornwall for a week, off the internet. But I can be outraged on my return, don't worry about that.

Labels: reviews

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Joe Mallozzi's Book Club

No, not an offbeat episode of the Sopranos, but an exciting initiative from writer, critic, bon vivant, and Stargate Atlantis joint-supremo Joe Mallozzi. We go back a long way me and Joe. We first met at one of Baron Destructo's interminable drinks events, it's a long story, and since then we've never looked back. You'd be amazed the conversational mileage that can be derived from simply having the same first name as someone else - already I have more in common with him than almost anyone else I know.

Anyway, as well as a writer, exec. producer, blogger and prolific eater, the other Joe is also a keen reader of sci-fi and, more recently, fantasy, and has decided to present some of this high-class genre material to his many readers. He examines, discusses, and invites comments on a sci-fi book, horror book, and fantasy book each month. This week's choice? Why, only the first part of Joe Abercrombie's seminal modern fantasy trilogy The First Law, no book other than The Blade Itself!

But dial down your pacemakers, because to make matters more exciting still, Joe has managed to prevail upon many of the authors of his featured works (some of whom aren't even called Joe) to join in the discussions. He's already had my US editor, the wonderful Lou Anders on to discuss his anthology Fast Forward, and he's got folks such as John Scalzi, John Shirley, Kage Baker, and KJ Bishop upcoming. And yes, indeed, you guessed it, I'll be hijacking Joe's blog later in the week to answer questions/dodge sh*t flung at me by his readers in relation to the Blade Itself. There are already a few gems showing up in the comments section, including such stuff as:

"I can't really review 'The Blade Itself' because I only made it to page 100 before I gave up and turned to 'The Android's Dream'. I guess the book was just not for me."

A ha ha ha. But seriously, I think this is a great thing Joe's doing, and I'm delighted to be involved. By all means drop by yourselves, and join in the fun...

Labels: news, reviews

Monday, 12 May 2008

Assorted Stuff

The guys at Westeros.org have done a little survey to establish the top ten favourite sf&f authors for their readership, and guess who came in 9th place?

That's right, new kid on the block, Joe Abercrombie.

Oh, yes indeed. Finally OBJECTIVE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of what I have long suspected, that I am a writer situated WITHOUT FEAR OF CONTRADICTION at the DIZZY SUMMIT OF MY FIELD.

In order to reach the exalted heights of ninth place it was necessary, of course, to clamber up a mountain of the skulls of lesser authors. I opened a can of whoop-ass on such talentless hacks as Jack Vance, Arthur C. Clarke, and Edgar Allen Poe. I spanked Haruki Murakami, pwned Umberto Eco, and made Franz Kafka where his ASS for a HAT. I know what you're thinking. Those last three aren't really sf&f authors by any meaningful definition are they? Well, no, I suppose they're not, but they're all united in GETTING LESS VOTES THAN ME.

Of course, this is a site dedicated to GRRM, so it's understandable that epic fantasy, and epic fantasy of the grittier persuasion for that matter, should do well with the membership there. Plus there's always a huge effect of recency in such votes and I have had three books out pretty close together, one of them just a couple of months ago, so the god of release dates (or is he a devil?) has been kind to me on this occasion. Still very gratifying, of course. My thanks to everyone who voted.

For me.

What's that you say, you've read the entire First Law Trilogy and want more Joe Abercrombie? Well how about going to JW Builders, where they have not one, but two Joe Abercrombies for hire at once! Father and son, no less. Admittedly, Joe Sr. and Joe Jr. don't write gritty yet hilarious fantasy, but rather are experts in steel construction within the Cedaredge Colorado region.

File this one under surreal. Natalie Hatch has listed me in her post on "more foxy male authors". There, I am, all dark and dangerous, just under that picture of Chris Ryan looking all buff and oiled up. I must just correct the small error there however - I am an editor, not a producer. As far as foxiness goes, though, GUILTY ... AS ... CHARGED. Dear, dear, the things one can achieve with good lighting. And the things one finds using google blog search...

Back to safer and more familiar ground! A review of Last Argument of Kings from Robert at Sci-Fi London:

"all of the characters, even the bit players, are beautifully realised, being recognisable without resorting to cliche, the world they live in is nicely presented but without overpowering the story like so many fantasy worlds do and the writing is straightforward and direct giving the action scenes an immediacy that moves things along at a decent clip but at the same time it doesn't flinch from giving us the grim details where necessary ... The conclusion to this gripping trilogy, like it's forerunners, is worth every second of your rapt attention. If you haven't had the pleasure of diving into Joe Abercrombie's world then I urge you to do so now, you'll be glad you did."

I likes it. A more mixed review from Larry Nolen over at Strange Horizons, where they like a bit of, in the timeless words of Samuel L. Jackson, that serious gourmet sh*t:

"My reaction to this novel could be summarized as "what could have been." If the characters had been developed just a bit more, if Abercrombie had "shown" their conflicts rather than just "telling" us about them, if there had been a better balance between the external conflict and the characters' internal clashes ... if all of that had happened, then Last Argument of Kings could have been a work that transcended its setting. Instead, The First Law series as a whole will appeal mostly to epic fantasy junkies, with little to recommend it to those who believe that epic fantasies as a whole are little more than tired repetitions of the same worn-out schema."

Limited appeal? I beg to differ! Am I not ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY OBJECTIVELY one of the ten best f&sf authors on the planet ever? I think I am! Larry has invited me to call him a poopyhead in response. Naturally, I am entirely above such things, and will merely note instead that he's used the phrase, "as a whole" twice in one sentence. Ah, what could have been - if it weren't for such tired repetitions of worn out schema this could have been a review that transcended its setting...

Still, there's nothing to stop you lot, the voice of the unwashed masses, calling Larry a poopyhead in the comments section below. I'm sure he'll also thoroughly enjoy any use of the terms "pretentious" and "elitist", along with, perhaps, some numerical evaluations of his reviewing skills, with as many decimal places as you should desire...

Labels: ha ha, reviews

Thursday, 24 April 2008

Ye Olde Middle Booke Syndrome

Too long has it been, good friends, since I girded my loins (whatever that means), unsheathed my mighty blade, bestrid my charger, and rode forth from my shining citadel to do righteous battle against the forces of evil. Well, not evil in the strictest sense, perhaps, but people who criticise me, anyway, which is the closest thing to pure evil abroad in the world today, in my book. What's that you say? Yours too? Ah, you stand among the righteous! Let me now, then, strike a blow for noble souls everywhere by letting fall like the hammer of God my well-deserved wrath upon those who had anything but the most sycophantic praise for my middle book, Before They are Hanged.

There are, of course, many sensible, intelligent, cultured, and attractive people out there who love The Blade Itself and its sequel unreservedly as though 'twere their own flesh. There are, believe it or not, a couple of neanderthal losers who hated the first book and hence got no further, but, really, who cares what they think?

But there are also some enigmas. Some human riddles. Folks who evidently missed the point the first time round, but got it the next time. Still more bizarre, plenty who loved the first book but were less impressed with the second. I know what you're thinking, but it's not enough to simply scream, "insanity!" and call for the brain doctors, for I'm reasonably sure that at least some of these people function in real life almost as normal individuals. We need to find out what's going on here, for it may be possible that some among them can be saved.

An accusation often used in these somewhat disappointed-sounding reviews is that of "middle book syndrome". What is this syndrome, and wherefore comes it? Does it turn your brain spongey, like Creutzveldt-Jakob Syndrome? Is it something terrible but that can be survived with the proper treatment, like Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome? Might it even burn a hole straight through the earth, like The China Syndrome?

My dictionary which I use to look up words that I don't know what I may seem right cleverer than others defines a syndrome as: "any combination of signs and symptoms that are indicative of a disease or disorder." What, then, are the observed symptoms of Middle Book Syndrome? In particular, from my point of view, what symptoms of malaise does Before They are Hanged exhibit?

I must admit I've always been surprised by the diagnosis, because I felt myself that Before They are Hanged was a big improvement pretty much across the board (not that the first book isn't fantastic, of course, if you haven't bought it you really should, it'll change your life etc.) I feel on re-reading that I'm happier with the prose in the second book, in general, though a couple of scenes I'd tinker with now. The pace seems much faster, much more directed, I like the way the different plots inter-relate, peak at different moments or at the same time. It all feels much more fluid to me than the first book, where I was still working out a lot about the characters, the story, and just how to do it. That and simply, with a lot of the setup of characters and settings done, I felt free to get into the story more thoroughly, explore some of the relationships between the characters, broaden the scale to some bigger events, some bigger set-piece battles and adventures and so on. My Mum agrees, incidentally, and she's always right.

I mean to say, was I not crowned most improved writer of 2007 by Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, with a soaring increase in my scores from a miserable 7.5/10 for The Blade Itself to a resplendent 7.5/10 for Before They are Hanged? Did Publisher's Weekly not consider my first book "a muddled sword and sorcery ... marred by repetitive writing and an excess of torture and pain" but my second a "grim and vivid sequel that transcends its middle volume status ... suffused with a rich understanding of human darkness and light"?

Well is it better or isn't it? Can I not get just one straight answer? Let us see...

Robert, of Fantasy Book Critic, though undoubtedly liking the series, definitely detected a whiff of the dreaded syndrome about Before They are Hanged. He still loves the characters, but he thought the plot had somewhat run out of steam:

"Unfortunately, Before They Are Hanged did not impress me as much and largely that's a result of being a middle volume. In other words, not much happens ... Thankfully the characterization was even stronger than it was last time, so even though the story was disappointing, I still had a blast ... [the characters] are unquestionably the strength of the novel - and the trilogy as a whole so far - but the lackluster plot kept me from enjoying the sequel as much as I did The Blade Itself."

So it was a lack of action, or perhaps of resolution, that was the problem? The middle book of a trilogy contains neither the excitement of new beginnings, or the satisfaction of closure, it's ... the other bit. But in this era of 7, 10, 12 volume mega-sequences, does that mean we are doomed to 5, 8, 10 sub-par linking tomes? Perhaps, perhaps it does, alac the heavy day. But what's this? Larry of Wotmania fame, had the opposite reaction. He thought the plotting in Hanged was much improved but had problems with the characterisation:

"The choppiness of the first book has been smoothed out and the action develops nicely. There are scenes full of great dramatic tension, but ultimately the uneven characterization and the over-reliance upon cynical takes on stock characters makes for a story whose promise remains somewhat unfulfilled."

The characters, are the problem, then? Familiarity breeds contempt, and so forth. They've got worse, or at least, not better, and therefore stale? John Enzinas, at SFSite, certainly detected such a 'going off':

"The world history is fascinating and the descriptions of both the settings and the fights are wonderful. The characters, however, are limp and listless, like vegetables left too long in the fridge. They've lost the crispness and freshness they had when we first saw them ... It's clearly a bridging book, meant to get the characters in position for the final act, and this it does admirably. I just wish that the author had taken a little bit more time with it and maintained the level of craft that he managed with his first book."

Curse my lack of craft! My characters too long in the salad drawer, damn them! But then Monsters and Critics , unmoved by the first book, appear to say the exact opposite, focusing their pleasurable surprise on my wonderfully improved characterisation:

"Where many of the characters in the first book seemed stiff and contrived, here they become dynamic, well-developed personalities struggling to survive the trials of the day ... If Abercrombie continues this pattern of improvement, he will undoubtedly become a major voice in the fantasy genre."

So it's a problem with characters, or plotting, or possibly a bit of both, or the pace is too fast, or too slow, or maybe there is no problem and I'm way better than I used to be, cos the first book was rubbish. Hmmm. Certainly the specific symptoms of the syndrome are difficult to get a handle on. I'm being unfair, of course, because who said critics have to agree with each other? But from my point of view some consensus would be interesting, perhaps even educational, and hey, it's a blog, who said I have to be fair? Let us delve further, then. Siobhan Carroll at Strange Horizons very much liked the first book, but had a different take on mild disappointment with the second:

"Before They Are Hanged lacks the polish of Abercrombie's previous novel, The Blade Itself. That book mixed the pared-down prose of hard-boiled detective fiction with the epic scope of a George R. R. Martin fantasy in a plot that steered refreshingly clear of most of the usual fantasy conventions. Now that Abercrombie is further into his trilogy, however, the familiar beats of an epic fantasy series are beginning to emerge."

This I can kind of understand. I think a lot of readers prefer the second book because the plot in the first is, you know, kind of vague and uncertain (I'd say mysterious), and in the second becomes a bit more clear, easier to follow. Perhaps they're worried initially that the lack of a clear plot might mean, you know, that there's no plot at all. Perhaps at the same time this focusing, and the surface (alright, more than surface) simliarities to classic tales of epic fantasy in the second book are the very things that distance other kinds of reader, the ones that precisely liked that unfamiliar, amorphous quality in the first. Is it all a question of taste, then, like every bloody other thing in reading/writing? Or is there more to this middle book syndrome? I think Ken at Neth Space might have come closest to the heart of the problem:

"Abercrombie plays with common fantasy tropes (all-knowing wizard, barbarian from the north, stuck-up nobleman, etc.) - he uses many of them, yet does so with a biting, satirical edge and seems to revel in taking the story in unexpected directions. Before They Are Hanged does all this (and more), but since this is the second book of the trilogy, the novelty of the approach has worn off. With the novelty gone, things almost become tiresome in places ... my impression at the moment is that Before They Are Hanged suffers a bit from the middle book syndrome."

That thing that every author has, no matter how derivative their work, that individuality of style, of approach, of concerns or ideas, the thing that makes them new and interesting (hopefully), that novelty, well, that, alas, will almost always wear off to a degree. We might still love it, but it will never hit us quite the same as it did the first time. I guess that's the reason why I still love Game of Thrones more than the rest of Martin's series, despite admitting there's bigger, better, bolder stuff in the later books. When he does the things he's so good at doing, I'm never going to be as shocked, as moved, as impressed as I was the first time.

Perhaps that's the difficulty at the heart of middle book syndrome. An author's books may get better, but they may well not get better enough...?

Labels: opinion, reviews

Thursday, 3 April 2008

Ending Like an Avalanche

SPOILERS * SPOILERS * SPOILERS

If you ain't read my books, best read no more of this, for it may spoil the (wonderful/shocking/deeply moving) experience somewhat. Certainly don't read the comments section of this or the previous post, which are sure to BURN YOUR EYES LIKE THE BREATH OF THE BALROG OF MORIA.

What's that you say? You've read all my books so far, and I'm talking mostly about the third one, Last Argument of Kings? Then we may continue...

I'm not that hot on foreign languages if I'm honest, and my Danish? (Finnish? Swedish? Norwegian?) is slightly rusty, but I'm interpreting the headline of this review as:

"Abercrombie's Last Argument of Kings is Tolkein with a Magnum 44"

That's all I need to understand. Although I also see, in the way you sometimes do in the midst of a paragraph of incomprehensible foreign words, some English springing out lower down. The words "Hollywood-Ending." I'll take a wild guess, and assume he's pointing out that there isn't one.

Peadar O' Guilin (aplogies for the lack of appropriate accents on those Irish letters), author of The Inferior, has been musing on the subject of the great importance of endings over on his blog. The man makes some good points about how it's very hard, once you've finished a book, for one's opinion not to be entirely coloured by the ending.

I think this is particularly true of epic fantasy, in which series often start with great promise, but seem to lose focus, bloat out in the middle, and often end with a bit of a disorganised and predictable whimper (apologies, of course, to the many important exceptions). I was very keen when writing the First Law that it should a) stick to three books of roughly the same size, b) build steadily so that scale and pace mounted with each part, and c) have a satisfying end that had some twists, was unusual within the genre, and (hopefully) said something about real life too. Now I hope people won't think I'm just tooting my horn if I say that I'm very happy with the way it turned out. But everyone has different tastes. Some in the english-speaking world found the ending just a bit too dark, even if they liked the book. Ben from the Deckled Edge:

"When I read other reviews saying Abercrombie took the fantasy tropes and completely tore them up in Last Argument of Kings, I wasn't sure exactly what they meant. I have to admit I was shocked at how events turned out. The battles were amazing, the character machinations and revelations even more so. What really surprised me was how the reader's preconceptions of the characters and the world were totally turned on its head. Thus, The only complaint I have of Last Argument of Kings is that the world-view is too cynical for my tastes, but I think that's Abercrombie's point."

'Tis indeed the point, my man. I like my tea dark and strong, and my endings the same way. If you're comfortable with it all, then it ain't really worked. But for some, and I suspect there'll be more of these as time goes on, the end was ... just too much. John Enzinas over at SFSite was pretty keen on the first two books. He seemed almost ... wounded by the third, though:

"Like the avalanche, it is powerful, mesmerizing and unstoppable. However, also like an avalanche, the only way things can end is in a crush at the base of the mountain with luck being more likely than skills or bravery to save you ... No matter how brilliant the dialogue, how engaging and sympathetic the characters, how fascinating the mythology, or how clever the writing, a story needs to provide an ending that leaves room for hope and change, if not in the lives of the characters, then at least in the world itself. A world without hope is one I can leave behind and not look back."

I actually think that's a great review, and, oddly enough, would make me want to read the book more than any other I've read. I actually don't think it's as utterly devoid of hope as the man felt, but, yeah, you got me, it's pretty harsh. The thing is, I love a happy ending, when it's appropriate, but there's an awful, awful lot of 'em out there. Even stuff that comes over all cynical-as-you-like to begin with often ends up drowning in a saccharine bog of sentimentality (or overblown tragedy, which in its way rings just as hollow). That's why I love and admire The Wire so much (more on that later). Real darkness is pretty rare in any genre, but particularly in epic fantasy, I reckon.

So I'll settle for an ending like an avalanche. A few readers are sure to clamber out cold and unhappy, teeth chattering, saying they're never going to ski again. Some may even feel crushed. But I reckon most will enjoy the ride, and, even if they don't, the experience might just give them something to think about...

Labels: opinion, reviews

Sunday, 30 March 2008

Locus Pocus

Man, if only I spent a fraction of the time writing my books as I do dreaming up hilarious pun headings for my blog we might really have some quality fantasy fiction out there in the marketplace. I mentioned in the last post that I attended a panel at Eastercon about online reviews, and the opinion seemed to be pretty much unanimous that an author should never respond to their reviews. Best just to rise above it. You only dignify it by responding, and cheapen the authorial coin. Nothing to gain, everything to lose. The dignity of silence.

Yeah, right. Dignity? Me?

Probably I'm a bit late to this, but there's quite a substantial review of Last Argument of Kings in the latest edtion of Locus:

"Abercrombie holds nothing back in his depiction of torutre, hand-to-hand combat, the clash of armies, and climactic assaults that recall some of the worst of World War II ... But behind the mayhem there's no Dark Lord or Darth Vader dreaming of the ultimate triumph of evil; (nearly) everyone here is fully human, driven by the force of circumstance and the vagaries of self. Last Argument of Kings ends the First Law trilogy with a mordant brilliance ... Despite the apparent medievalism of its courts and tribes, this is industrial-strength, politically savvy fantasy for our own times."

Mmmmmmm. Melts in the mouth. Equally warm and tasty was Hobbit's response at SFFWorld:

"For those jaded by the genre's predictability, yet hopeful about revisiting the elements that encouraged them to read Fantasy in the first place, this might be the series. A trilogy that justifies being a trilogy, produced in three years ... For those who have stuck the course, this trilogy shows an amazing development and progression, not only in scope but also in writing style. And the man's only three books into what, I hope, will be a lengthy publishing career. How do you top this? Recommended very highly."

Not quite so easily digestible (at least for me), was the opinion of a guy I was lucky enough to meet at Forbidden Planet, and subsequently at Eastercon, the Little Kid with a Beard, who basically enjoyed the series greatly, but is one of an emerging group of, for want of a better description, cynical malcontents who had some issues with the ending:

"Abercrombie's talent for developing believable characters and changing the tone and voice of each chapter according to the point of view is a joy to read. Although Abercrombie takes familiar fantasy staples, he manages to escape coming off as a cheap hack reinventing Tolkien ... Strangely, Last Argument of Kings seems to rob both its reader and the protagonists of a peaceful ending. In fact by the end of the book you can't help but wonder if certain characters are any better off than when the first book started."

Endings, shmendings. In all seriousness, he's not alone in having his doubts about the conclusion. It's a difficult area to get right, and I always knew the road I took wouldn't work for everyone. But then that's true of every aspect of writing. Such is the torture of reviews for the author. Some consensus, please, guys? Just give me the objective truth, if you will?

Only a thousand, thousand voices, raised in a clamour of infinite discord...

Anyway, the differing response to the endings is something that I may have to look at in more detail once more folks have read the books, along with some spoilerific content about what I was trying to achieve with the whole business. Other than to live in an enormous mansion with a swimming pool shaped like a magic sword, of course. Still waiting on that one...

BY THE WAY: If you haven't read the books, best not read the comments. They've got some spoilers in them, which I should probably have seen coming, and I'd hate to damage anyone's enjoyment of my own books.

Labels: reviews

Wednesday, 19 March 2008

Worldbuilding and Tropes

Official release date for Before They are Hanged in the US is tomorrow, but the book's actually been available there for a month or more, and opinions currently abound. King of the Nerds had some interesting things to say about the worldbuilding, or lack thereof:

"I would be counted among the detractors regarding Abercrombie's scant attention to setting but, as I thought about it, I've decided that his lack of attention to setting (except where necessary) is completely intentional. In many ways, to go with an extreme analogy, Abercrombie's functions in many ways as the set from Our Town. Abercrombie sketches out bare details and populates a scene with what, at first appearance, are obvious archetypes but on closer examination stray much further from the fantasy norm. It is, as I said, an extreme analogy. There is one key thing to note, setting is mostly non-extant except for the major action set-pieces. Its an abrupt slide from black and white to full color but one that serves to enhance the action and leave a lingering image with the reader. As a result Abercrombie's richly textured and vividly imagined characters stand out all the stronger. It becomes about the people and their, often strange, relationships to one another."

Which encapsulates my approach to worldbuilding a good deal more succinctly than I generally manage to do, I'd say. I've got nothing against fantasies that emphasise worldbuilding, I'm as enthusiastic a fan of Tolkien as the next man, but there's an awful lot of that type of work out there. In having a go myself, I wanted to push the world into the background and bring the characters firmly to the fore. I'm more interested in those things that epic fantasy has in common with every other kind of story-telling (character, plot, and action), if you like, than those things that separate it (worldbuilding, magic, and monumental length, though let's face it, my books ended up pretty damn long). If it becomes, as the man says, about the people and their, often strange, relationships to one another, I'm well satisfied. Fantasy Magazine have also taken a look:

"There's no way to give a capsule description of this novel without making it sound generic. Indeed, many of the plot elements are familiar from any number of other epic fantasies, and the battle scenes and fast-paced action sequences and abundance of political intrigue, while well-crafted, are pretty much fantasy standard. Anything but standard, however, is the pitch-black cynicism with which it's all presented. Abercrombie creates a world in which every official is corrupt, every motive suspect, and virtue's only reward is death and degradation. Even characters who grow and change get no credit-the obnoxious Jezal learns the folly of his arrogance, but that doesn't make him any less of a fool. All this darkness is saved from monotony by frequent flashes of black humor, often popping up when least expected."

Which encapsulates my approach to the tropes of epic fantasy pretty neatly. The situations, the settings, the events we're used to seeing in the genre, but hopefully with deeper characters, a more realistic, less romaniticised feel, and (as the series goes on) very different outcomes. I feel you'll surprise people most effectively if you give them, at least to some extent, what they expect at first, then when they're snugly sure of what they're going to get, give them the opposite. For me that's the strongest appeal of writing within an established form with well established patterns. Finally, Rob Bedford's been reading the book for a review at SFFWorld:

"Joe Abercrombie has done it again. He's written another page-turner which plays with genre convention with a narrative style and pace that easily pulls the reader along for the ride. The only difference from his first book is that somewhere between finishing The Blade Itself and starting Before They Are Hanged, he became an even better writer. His plotting is tighter this time around and more focused."

If he feels that way about the first two, I think he'll really like the third...

In other news, the piece about George RR Martin's Game of Thrones I referred to in an earlier post is up on the interweb now at SFX's book club as a PDF, if anyone's interested in reading it. Probably nothing that's going to blow the minds of any serious fantasy buffs amongst you, but, hey. And I'm sure you'll all have this lovingly circled in your calendars, but I'm signing books, or anything else you care to bring, at Forbidden Planet on Shaftesbury avenue tomorrow evening from six. Maybe I'll see some of you there...

Labels: news, reviews

Saturday, 15 March 2008

Last Argument of Kings

Gather round, my friends, for I have great news! Fans of edgy yet humorous yet action-packed yet deeply inventive and moving fantasy fiction rejoice! I note that Last Argument of Kings is now shipping from amazon.co.uk. At the time of writing it resides in fact, at an amazon.co.uk sales rank of 12. 1200? No. 120? No. 12. In fantasy? No. In fiction? No. 12, in all books. It is, for this glorious hour at least, amazon uk's 12th highest selling book. It may also be found in the foremost bookshops of the land, though at this stage probably on trolleys in their stock rooms, rather than actually on the shelves.

What's that? You need more of me basking in self-aggrandisement? I am to be found discussing the book at the Genre Files, along with such issues as my response to negative criticism (I float effortlessly above it, don't you know).

Fortunately, no such floating will be necessary with regard to my review in March's edition of Death Ray, who have rewarded me the bare acceptable minimum of 4.5 stars. Admittedly, they called it "The Last Argument of Kings." There is no "The", but I'm pretty sure it is my book they're talking about:

"Abercrombie is a fantasy writer who can really write. No, really. As with the previous two books, Last Argument of Kings is tightly plotted, has wit and style to spare, and in the barbarian Logen and the Inquisitor Glokta it has two of the best fantasy creations of recent years ... Forget the sterile battles of modern fantasy: here we have brutal medieval realism in which bloody teeth fly and guts are clutched at in one of the most heroic sieges since Helm's Deep."

Mmmmmm, bloody teeth. There's an interview in March's SFX, also, with a full page picture of me, debonairely let challengingly leaning against a whitewashed wall, as I often am to be found doing. They've also managed to paint out all my boils and photoshop my missing eye back in. Amazing, what they can do these days. Aidan at A Dribble of Ink has had the honour and privilege of reading the book in advance, and you know what? He kinda liked it:

"Last Argument of Kings is without a doubt the strongest novel in the cycle and, indeed, one of the strongest finishes to a trilogy I've come across in a long time. It’s refreshing to find an author who can not only finish a story in three books (a rarity in the fantasy genre these days, it seems) but to also do so in a satisfying manner ... The First Law ends much as it begins: raw, gritty and full of humanity."

Care to put a number on it, Aidan?

"I decided I wouldn't attach numerical values to my reviews, but if I were to thrust such an arbitrary label upon Last Argument of Kings, it would probably look much like a 9.9/10"

Someone, somewhere, is taking the piss. In all seriousness, the response to the book so far has been extremely gratifying. Numerical ratings are essentially tosh, of course, but (since you ask) the ratings for Last Argument of Kings from blogs and magazines so far have been: 4.5 stars, 4.5 stars, 5 stars, 9.5/10, 9.75/10, 9.75/10, and 9.9/10. Oh, and 8 from Pat, though he shall pay for that slur upon mine honour, oh yes, he shall pay. You can find some details from those reviews here, should you not quite be convinced.

Probably you want to find out what all the fuss is about, hmmmmm?

Now you can, my friends, now you can...

Labels: announcements, interviews, reviews

Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Misogynist? Moi?

Came back from a few days away down in Bath to an interesting pair of posts from King Rat. It all began as a diffusely positive review of Before They are Hanged (though of course, nothing like as positive as I'd like), and then ended up accusing me of hardcore sexism. Perhaps I exaggerate. You be the judge. If you are minded to read on, beware of some very minor spoilers for the series:

"I do have something to say about the female characters in the book though. The word that comes to mind when I think about them is misogynistic. I know it's a loaded word to throw out there, but I can't think of anything else."

Ouch. Misogynistic? Woman-hating? Bringing to mind as it does images of bible-thumping pro-lifers, hardcore sharia law and brutalist rappers, yes, that certainly is a pretty loaded--

"The vast majority of the characters in the book are male. Contrast that with Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls which I didn't like all that much, but which included many female characters. I can think of only four in this book, three of them minor."

Well, true, there aren't that many women. The First Law was an attempt to do a retake on the classic fantasy trilogy, and epic fantasy, taking its cue from Tolkien, does tend to focus heavily on men, the women often restricted to the love interests of said men. Perhaps that makes it, in some ways, a fundamentally sexist genre, but it's not unlike war films or westerns in that sense, or romances in the opposite direction, I guess, and I'd argue it's more about the treatment of the individuals involved than the numbers. But by all means let's have a look at the female characters one by--

"The one to get the second most screen time is Cathil, who serves little purpose except as a semen receptacle. One of the big parts of Ferro's character is similar, she's a former slave/prostitute who must shut out a life of being used sexually and uses that to fuel her rage. Female character three is West's sister Ardee. While not a bimbo, she spends the entire book waiting for her male saviors. Practical Vitari is a pain-loving torturer list her co-workers. But, minor and unimportant spoiler here, she's revealed to have a soft spot for her multiple children. All four women defined by very stereotypical attributes."

Ouch. Granted, Ferro and Cathil both have histories of sexual oppression. Cathil suffers some during the second book. But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war, unless you want to avoid any sexual element whatsoever (which seems to me cowardly in an adult book) there's really nowhere else to go and remain (to my mind) honest and convincing, which is always my prime aim. What is the alternative here that would make these characters "non-misogynistic"? That Ferro should be a well-adjusted, unmolested escaped slave? That Cathil should have been through incarceration equivalent to the Siberian Gulag without any event, then walked among a gang of sex-starved barbarians for a few weeks without it ever coming up that there's a woman in their midst?

Ardee is forced to wait for male saviors because of her position in society. That may be stereotyped, but I don't know that she's necessarily "defined by that stereotypical position". Could the same not be said for every female character in Pride and Prejudice? Are they, therefore, misogynist stereotypes? The argument seems particularly weak when used about Vitari. What, she's got children that she cares for, so she must be a female stereotype, even if she's a hard-bitten torturer? Mr. Rat doesn't mention Carlot dan Eider at all, incidentally, who's probably the most important woman besides Ferro in Before They are Hanged, and the only significant female in the books with considerable temporal power. Perhaps she should be considered stereotyped because she was once forced into an arranged marriage, though, I don't know?

"An argument can be made that anything modeled on Medieval times should follow Medieval culture, a very patriarchal one. But if we get to build a fantastic world, one with majic and invented geographies and societies created from the mind, could we not discard the typical female roles for a while?"

Perhaps we could, but if we do, I think there's a price to be paid in the relevance and realism of the invented world. I wanted to do something that was honest, that was truthful, that was firmly rooted in historical reality, becuase for me those are the fantasy worlds that I find most convincing, most concrete. I don't personally have much use for the argument, "this is fantasy, so we can do anything we like." I think it encourages some of the genre's most lazy, shoddy, unimaginative excesses. Since I wanted The First Law in a way to be a re-examination of classic epic fantasy, and classic epic fantasy takes place in a pre-industrial, patriarchal world, that's the backdrop I went for. And I would point out, as Scott Bakker has often done in response to similar accusations, that examination is by no means endorsement.

It's funny. I haven't read Scott Lynch's Red Seas Under Red Skies, but I have noticed him getting quite a lot of stick for the exact opposite treatment of women (though one presumes from a different section of the readership) - he has a pretty 'equal opportunities' fantasy world in which there are a lot of woman soldiers, bodyguards, pirates, and so on. He's been taken to task by a fair few readers for this being unrealistic, unconvincing, an imposition of PC modern values onto a medieval/rennaisance fantasy world. I guess this is one issue, as with so many in writing, where you're pretty much damned in someone's eyes whatever you do. Unless your world and characters are utterly bland and hence of interest to no-one, you'll always be offending someone's sensibilities.

If you're a man, in general, it's harder to write female characters than male ones. Fact. The book I'm currently writing has a woman in the central role, and I don't mind admitting it's a challenge. You can say - you should approach the women just like you do the men - and by and large that's what I try to do, but men and women aren't identical, physically or socially, and there will always be elements of the female experience that you're guessing at. That tends to make you tentative, perhaps, especially when you know you'll never get accused of being sexist in relation to your male characters, but you almost certainly will at some point in relation to your female ones. Back to Mr. Rat, who's been thorough enough to post some additional thoughts:

"When a writer falls back on typical whore roles such as Joe Abercrombie or female as victim as Lauren Weisberger did, I think it reflects either laziness or a lack of imagination. Even if the character is a strong one such as Ferro is, when her strength is based on a reaction to common abused roles of women, there isn't much stretching involved. Sometimes there's a point needing to be made about women, their roles, or abuse, and sometimes these roles just work best in a story. But too often it just feels like a paint-by-numbers scene. That irritates me, especially in these cases. Do I know that's what Joe Abercrombie did? No. Another reader might easily have a different take on these characters."

The First Law is a series, like most epic fantasy, mostly about men, and so the women tend to be seen in terms of their relationships with those men. Perhaps a certain theme of sexual oppression did creep in without my noticing. Perhaps the women weren't my deepest or most succesful characters, that's not for me to say, and I think it's always a risk for a male writer. But "misogynist"? "Typical whore roles"? "Semen receptacle"? Seriously? That's strong, man, that's pretty damn strong. "Another reader might easily have a different take on these characters," apparently. Pray God that is the case. Answers below, please...

Labels: opinion, reviews

Wednesday, 5 March 2008

Gonzo Fantasy

First, some announcements. Worlds of Fantasy tonight, on BBC4, at 9pm, will include footage of me, saying stuff. About Peake, and Tolkien, and the "EPIC IMAGINATION", apparently. Possibly. Not to be missed. Anyone who sees it, by all means come back here and tell me how much I sucked ass.

Secondly, the good people of Romania will soon have the opportunity to join the fantasy craze that is sweeping the globe. Patrick Rothfuss, you ask? Well, no, not him, he's going there already, probably, but-- Scott Lynch, cry the crowd excitedly? Well, actually, I think he went there a while ago now, but-- Brandon Sanderson, Brian Ruckley, Alan Campbell, Tom Lloyd, Daniel Abraham, Felix Gilman, Robert Redick, or, or, or-- No, none of them. It's the First Law, I'm talking about. Yes, courtesy of Nemira, one of Romania's foremost genre imprints (Martin, Robinson, Herbert etc.), The Blade Itself should be coming within six months, with the other two books following about six months apart. Magic.

Now to some reviews. Do you remember Beezer? After reading The Blade Itself, he was left in two minds about my writing skills. "Mr. Abercrombie does show a knack for writing a solid tale. I think once he hones his craft and is able to correct some of these deficiencies he will truly be a name to watch in the fantasy genre." Well it looks like some honing went on some time last year, because of Before They are Hanged he says:

"However, in this novel, there seems to be an exponential growth in both his writing and his overall story. If this type of growth continues with the next novel (and any future stories after that) I think readers will be more than pleased ... The First Law trilogy seems to be taking on the mantel of a fine painting. Taken piece by piece each book is solid. However, taken as a whole, as the entire trilogy, the true beauty of this work begins to stand out."

It is, indeed, a positive Sistine Chapel ceiling among fantasy series. Internet humorist Elena, meanwhile, who earlier in the year was so taken with my phrase "a face as red as a slapped arse" has also checked out Before They are Hanged. She begins by voicing her amazement that I apparently know everything that is said about me on the internet, almost before it is written.

"I think he must have written a program to email him the URL of any website that speaks his name."

Luckily, someone else has written it already, and gifted it to the world in the same way that a crazy biologist might gift the world a lethal mutated virus. It's called Google Blog-Search, the most dangerous piece of technology since the a-bomb, and with it I waste 90% of my writing time. Elena has some interesting thoughts on the book too, though:

"I find myself wondering if this new sub-genre of fantasy--Abercrombie, Lynch, Martin et. al.--should be termed gonzo fantasy after Hunter S. Thompson's gonzo journalism. Consider: Filthy language? Check. Copious amounts of weapons for every occasion? Check. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong--hilariously? Check. An unlikely and perhaps unaware hero who stays alive against all odds, including his own activities? Check. Drug/alcohol use/abuse? Check. Written by someone you can see hunched over a typewriter smoking a cig without bothering to ash, slogging whiskey instead of caffeine, and not bathing for days on end? Check.

Gonzo fantasy. Goddamn brilliant."

I do wash, though, you know. Going back to where it all began, Larry, from Wotmania's Other Fantasy board, has finally run his critical eye over The Blade Itself.

"it is due to the strength of Abercrombie's characterizations and the rather up-close and personal approach to the storytelling that manages to keep the plot just interesting enough for readers to want more ... The "action," such as it is, is more of a set-up for the following two volumes, but with the promise that what follows after will make these oft-meandering plot threads into portents of something rather moving."

By no means a slating, but I will hold off on my assesment of Larry's reviewing capabilities until I have read the entire trilogy ... of reviews, apparently due to culminate in a piece of something they call professional criticism on Strange Horizons. Keep your eyes peeled for that. Long established blogger of the sci-fi and fantasy scene, Joe Sherry, had a more positive first reaction to The Blade Itself:

"There is so much going on in The Blade Itself. There are fascinating characters, political maneuvering a plenty, sword-play, action, a dash of romance, class politics, a variety of cultures, more action, magic, empires and feudal warlords, still more action, foul language, inventive language, something called action – all this, and more. The Blade Itself has something for everyone all wrapped up in a violent, action packed, sometimes profane package.

And I like it.

A lot."

However, he then goes on to refuse me my due of a perfect 10/10 score on the paltry bases that a) the book has no ending, and b) he does not give books numerical ratings. As if such feeble excuses will save him when my righteous wrath descends like a crimson tide upon the reviewing community...

To be fair to Joe, I don't really expect any perfect scores for The Blade Itself - too many unanswered questions, too much set-up, too much that depends on how the series develops and concludes for anyone to be throwing top marks around. It's the forthcoming Last Argument of Kings that'll get me the big scores, if I'm ever going to get them. We'll just have to wait to see how the mainstream print media responds to ... what's that you say? Early copy from next month's lead review from Dave Bradley in SFX?

"You should always end with the best. Wow them in the final act, make the last chorus a belter, build to a climax and get them on their feet applauding when the curtain falls. Last Argument of Kings is the textbook example of this theory in practice."

Oooh. That looks promising. What else?

"The third in Joe Abercrombie's debut fantasy series, The First Law, reveals everything a finale should: conveys some answers, ties together the loose ends from various plot strands, knocks over pieces painstakingly set up in the preceding stories, and in the aftermath delivers character development that surprises as well as delights."

Better yet. Final thoughts?

"It builds to a tense final act which fulfils every facet of the phrase, 'leave them wanting more'"

And how did the world's biggest selling SF magazine rate the book, I wonder?

Well, 5 stars, as it happens.

5 stars, you say? Out of?

Why, out of 5.

5 stars out of 5? You mean the maximum possible score? The best score? Top marks, as it were?

That's right. 5 stars. Read 'em and weep. I bet Pat Rothfuss never got none of that 5 star top marks shit from SFX!

Yes, yes he did.

Bastard. Well, I bet Scott Lynch never did!

Yes, yes he did too. Both of them did. First books. Five star debuts. Right out of the blocks.

Right. Great. I'll just go, then, shall I?

Labels: announcements, news, reviews

Tuesday, 26 February 2008

Tomorrow

Have YOU ever wondered what happens when six or seven sci-fi and fantasy authors are put in the same room with curry and beer paid for by a publisher?

Me neither.

But that's precisely what's happening tomorrow lunchtime (Wednesday 27th February), with a positive cornucopia of Gollancz authors in attendance. It's going to be me, Tom Lloyd (Or Lloydy, as we affectionately know him), Rob Grant (Grantsy), Adam Roberts (Robertsy), Mark Chadbourn (Chadders), and Robert Rankin. At least three of those people write proper, honest-to-goodness amusing books, with gags and everything, so you can bet some pretty damn hilarious shit is going to go down.

Richard Morgan (Morgsy) couldn't make it, alas, he'll be watching whales.

So to recap - me, Lloydy, Grantsy, Robertsy, Chadders, and Robert Rankin, in a curry house, talking that high-brow jive that authors talk to each other. You know, where Nabokov went wrong, the shortcomings of the third-person limited, who do you like for the Nebulas, and not at all the SAME OLD RUBBISH that everyone else talks.

Who knows what hilarious larks and hijinks will ensue? Well, actually, if you're in any way interested, YOU, JOE PUBLIC, can know, because apparently the whole thing is being filmed on VIDEO TAPE MACHINES. Not to embarrass the various horrified writers involved as they spill Madras down themselves, but actually for marketing purposes. Publishers, man. What will they think of next? More as I know it.

I believe that Editorial Director Simon Spanton (Spanty, as I affectionately call him) will have an exciting, though probably heavy, brown-paper package to give to me. Ooooooh. More on that mystery in due course.

Following that it's off for coffee with my editor, Gillian (I dare not even pretend to have a nickname for her), who's had the PROFOUND PRIVILEGE of reading the first 90,000 words of my latest book over the last week or two and has, in her own words, "a few vicious suggestions". Always she wants more blood. More torture. More gore. "The readers want gore," I can almost guarantee she'll say. "Gore, gore, gore, torture, and gore. Less of this namby-pamby characterisation bollocks, and more torture. There's only one hideously violent murder in the first chapter! Call yourself a writer?" In all seriousness, we need to come up with ideas for the cover. Something parchmenty, with blood? I wouldn't be surprised.

Then, finally, on BBC4 at 9.00 pm (though repeated at 12.00, I believe). There's the first episode of The Worlds of Fantasy, a TV series on Fantasy Literature for which I have been interviewed, would you believe. This episode focuses on the child hero, apparently - you know, stuff like Potter, Pullman, Pan's Labyrinth. Doesn't feature me at all. The next one (on worldbuilding) might feature some contributions from me, though, moodily lit in a strange old house on Wardour Street. Unless I've bitten the cutting room floor, and HARD (not unlikely). I'm a film editor myself, I know the game. That one (the one that might feature me) isn't until the following week (Wednesday 5th March) at 9.00 and midnight. Anyway, the show's been getting some good write-ups, and fantasy fiction gets precious little attention from the rest of the media, so I'm sure it'll be well worth a look for readers of the genre even if I'm not involved...

Labels: news, reviews

Friday, 22 February 2008

Scalding, lukewarm, hot, hot...ish

Sci-Fi & Fantasy forum and review site SFFWorld, where I am occasionally to be found singing my own praises, have been voting on their favourite books of 2007 and guess what came top? Only Before They are Hanged. The Blade Itself was also fifth on the list for the second year running, which was nice. The full rundown, you ask? Well, if you insist:

1. Before They are Hanged
2. The Name of the Wind - Pat Rothfuss
3. Reaper's Gale - Steve Erikson
4. Renegade's Magic - Robin Hobb
5. The Blade Itself/The Lies of Locke Lamora - Scott Lynch

See how I've put the books that I wrote in bold face so that no-one misses them. Heavy on the series-based epic fantasy, I think it's safe to say, but I'm not complaining.

Ken, over at Neth Space, rated The Blade Itself highly, but had a rather more lukewarm response to the sequel:

"If you enjoyed The Blade Itself, then chances are high that you'll enjoy Before They Are Hanged ... but since this is the second book of the trilogy, the novelty of the approach has worn off. With the novelty gone, things almost become tiresome in places ... Without Abercrombie's superior characterization and sardonic wit the plot would drag these books into obscurity instead of serving an adequate vehicle for what he's really about."

Interesting. I'm always a bit surprised when people don't like the second book as much, as I (and my Mum, incidentally) think it's better in pretty much every way. Most folks seem to agree, especially those who were perhaps a bit underwhelmed by the first, but there have definitely been a few commentators who really like the first book that are disappointed with the second. Perhaps it's that the plot seems to follow a more well-worn epic fantasy style path in Before They are Hanged. I think that time will vindicate me, but, well, I guess you can't please everyone.

Only look at Lilith St. Crow, author of Urban Fantasies such as Working for the Devil. She just so happens to have been reading The Blade Itself, and she despised it.

Only kidding!

"There's wizards, mythology, kings, princes, a self-absorbed nobleman, ancient legends, fencing - all written so well I was grinding my teeth with envy whenever I HAD to put the book down. This is a fantastic start to a trilogy, and I can't wait to get the next two books so I can see what happens next. There are some tropes, true, but they're handled so deftly and characterised so beautifully they take on the status of old friends instead of worn-out archetypes.

In short, I can't say enough good things about this book, and I highly recommend it."

And finally ... Pat, of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, who had, shall we say, qualified praise for the first two books, has cast his critical eye over Last Argument of Kings, and given it a pretty decent write up, I have to say:

"Last Argument of Kings is an excellent conclusion to what turned out to be a very entertaining series. And by demonstrating that he can close the show with a bang, Joe Abercrombie now holds the pole position as far as "the bright new voices of the fantasy genre" are concerned."

Proof positive that I do indeed, as many have often suspected, "hold the pole." OK, he gives it 8/10, but it's an improvement on my previous pair of 7.5s, and I think it's safe to say Pat has a ratings system as stern as Eowyn's chastity belt. My epic quest to find an internet critic with the sheer courage, honour, and vision to give me full marks will continue, I swear it.

Labels: reviews

Friday, 15 February 2008

SF Site Readers' Choice

This is nice. SF Site have posted their Readers' favourite books of 2007. Look what's in there at number 5.

Before They are Hanged, that's what, by Joe Abercrombie.

At number FIVE.

Particularly pleasing since I didn't even get near the also rans last year, and it's a book that has barely even been published in the US. SF Site also posted their Critics' favourite books of 2007. I'm nowhere near that list, naturally, which is fair enough, as you'd expect less commercial, more literary stuff to dominate there. It only goes to prove that I am, indeed, "fastly becoming the Big Mac of the genre".

Although, come to think of it, I am only at number 5. Pat Rothfuss is looming large at number 1, as he is on virtually everything this year. Curse that bearded fantasy wunderkind and his way with lyrical storytelling! So I guess I'll have to concede, with great and ill-becoming bitterness, that he's the Big Mac, at least for 2007. I'm probably closer to a slightly less popular staple of the McDonald's menu, like, say, a Fillet o' Fish or something. But I'm on the menu, motherf*ckers!

Before They are Hanged! FIVE!

By who, you ask?

Why, by me, Joe Abercrombie.

FIVE!

I'll go now.

Labels: reviews

Friday, 8 February 2008

Curios and Trivia

Various First Law related curios and trivia from the interweb this week:

An interview with yours truly over on French website Elbakin.net conducted by Pat of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist in English or in French. It's more of an introductory sort of an interview for the French audience, focusing on the first book, so those of you who've been slavishly following my every word (and I'm sure there are many thousands) will probably find nothing massively new. But hey, if you slavishly follow my every word (as everyone should), I'm sure you'll love it anyway, because that Joe Abercrombie guy is a hoot. There'll be some other interviews over the coming weeks that perhaps broach newer subject matter.

A very pleasing review of Last Argument of Kings from a man I've shared enough beer with to consider a friend. Mr. Marcus Gipps works for Blackwells and is a respected bookseller with an understanding of the fantasy genre both deep and wide - so you must believe him when he tells you things like this:

"It all works really well, is what I'm trying to say - I care about these characters ... the plot all comes together nicely in the end, people are actually changed by their experiences, and along the way we get some lovely writing. There's a battle scene here that rivals anything I've read in fantasy, quite frankly ... I'm hugely impressed, and if you have any interest in modern fantasy with a (seriously) dark edge, these are well worth reading."

Woo hoo! It's particularly pleasing since Marcus, I think it's fair to say, took time to win over. Someone who I'm still in the process of winning over is one Amras at A Slight Apocalypse. His reviews of The Blade Itself and Before They are Hanged tickle me much:

"I thought that the Blade Itself was one of the most over-hyped and poorly written fantasies I've had the misfortune of reading, and I could not believe why everyone was loving this trite bullsh*t ... I reread The Blade Itself to better learn to love myself. That's a horribly selfish thing to do, you might say, and you would be in the right. It was selfish and also a tad pompous, but somehow I believe that Joe Abercrombie would approve of it nonetheless."

Selfish and pompous? How could I not approve of my two favourite qualities?

That's all for now. I continue not to receive e-mail directed to joeabercrombie dot com, but will hopefully be picking it up within the next couple of weeks, and will respond then. Honest.

Labels: interviews, reviews

Tuesday, 29 January 2008

Imagine if Tarantino wrote a Sword & Sorcery Novel...

The guys at Unshelved have done a webcomic review of The Blade Itself, which is a wonderful thing (though due to the limitations of blogger you might have to click on it to enlarge so you can actually read it). I particularly like the line: "imagine if Quentin Tarantino wrote a Sword & Sorcery novel." I'm a bit of a fan of Tarantino (alright, of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction a hell of a lot, True Romance and Jackie Brown a bit, and the rest, not so much, but hey, two brilliant films is two more than most of us make, right?) so I take a comparison to him, however tongue-in-cheekly made, as a great compliment. But it did get me thinking about some similarities of approach...

Lurid, over-the-top violence? Check.

Conflicted, treacherous, shades-o-grey characters, haunted by their pasts? Check.

Black humour in the midst of the most awful situations? Check.

A focus on the crazy randomness of every day life? Check.

Fast cut, parallel plotlines that interweave in shocking and unexpected ways? Check.

Realistic dialogue that finds pearls of humour amongst the hum-drum of normality? Check-ish.

An un-ignorable legacy that has forever changed the way people work within a chosen genre? Erm ... alright, alright, I'm working on it.

Lots of cool 70s hippety-hoppety music and the involvement of Harvey Keitel? Well ... not so much. But what happened to Harvey Keitel anyway? At one point congress passed a law that you COULD NOT RELEASE a film without at least a Keitel cameo. Can't remember the last time I saw him.

But I digress. You know what? On the whole, it is as if Tarantino wrote a Sword & Sorcery novel.

Kind of.

There have been a lot of Blade Itself style posts around the place lately, so apologies if I never got to yours. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate what you have to say. I definitely appreciate what they had to say at The Horror Review:

"Up and coming Brit author Joe Abercrombie has presented the rapidly tiring fantasy genre with the most refreshing, original, and entertaining tome it has seen in years ... I cannot recommend The Blade Itself enough. In fact, this was my favorite book of the year with ease, and I am not sure I can wait until March for the U.S. release of book two of the trilogy, Before They Are Hanged."

And lastly, but by no means leastly, JG Thomas, who was able to secure a proof in the competition recently, has reviewed Last Argument of Kings on his new blog Speculative Horizons:

"Last Argument of Kings has everything you could ask for: huge battles, political intrigue, masterly characterisation and surprises by the bucket-load. This book will by turns shock you, excite you, make you laugh, and above all entertain you."

What do you know, another reviewer with a deadly allergy to top marks. He gives it 9.75/10 as well, though I prefer to think of it as 39/40, or maybe 98%. SIGH. I suppose I'll have to be satisfied with that.

I wonder if - some day - I should present some more content on here that isn't just self-aggrandising excerpts from other people's reviews of my books. Maybe soon. Maybe soon, I will...

Labels: news, reviews

Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Stars in my Eyes

Publisher's Weekly, that esteemed organ of the American book trade, was not entirely bowled over by The Blade Itself when it was published in the US back in September. They said, and I quote, though it hurts me to do it:

"British newcomer Abercrombie fills his muddled sword-and-sorcery series opener with black humor and reluctant heroes ... The workmanlike plot, marred by repetitive writing and an excess of torture and pain, is given over to introducing the mostly unlikable characters, only to send them off on separate paths in preparation for the next volume's adventures."

Aaarghhh! The pain! Take it away! Take it away! I was expecting when they came to review Before They are Hanged, therefore, at best a little movement in the right direction, from awful to, say, quite bad. Well either my second book went to a different reviewer or I got a whole lot better:

"This grim and vivid sequel to 2007's The Blade Itself transcends its middle volume status, keeping the reader engaged with complicated plotting and intriguing character development... Abercrombie leavens the bloody action with moments of dark humor, developing a story suffused with a rich understanding of human darkness and light."

Starred Review. Yes, that's right, STARRED REVIEW. Don't look directly at me, mortals! You could be blinded!

Labels: reviews

Sunday, 13 January 2008

What THEY are saying this year

Ah, more reaction to Last Argument of Kings, this time from Ariel over at