Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Teresa Edgerton]

Given that you're not objecting to me writing it... what are we talking about?

Well, that's a good question, isn't it? This thread was supposed to be about an article written by Joe Abercrombie. Maybe it's time, everyone, that the thread went back on topic, and stopped focusing so much on the books of Mark Lawrence.

It makes the discussion, perhaps, too personal, and it seems to me that a whole herd of metaphorical dead horses have been sufficiently flayed by now.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree. I admire Mark's perseverence against a lot of criticism for what is, in the end, a piece of fiction. And a very well written one at that. But the argument must, surely, be wider?

 

[AMB]

It makes the discussion, perhaps, too personal, and it seems to me that a whole herd of metaphorical dead horses have been sufficiently flayed by now.

*Puts away his horse flayer, disappointed.*

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I agree. I admire Mark's perseverence against a lot of criticism for what is, in the end, a piece of fiction. And a very well written one at that. But the argument must, surely, be wider?

Well I did try (repeatedly) to find out how any book (not mine) that contravenes #5 on Nerd's list:

I also think it's important to be clear that "grit" can mean different things.

1. A "shades of gray" moral scale, where no one is wholly good or wholly bad.

2. A generally pessimistic or cynical worldview, beyond just gray morality.

3. A tendency to favor dark and troubling subject matter over alternatives.

4. A lack of neat or tidy or reassuring conclusions.

5. High levels of violence, cruelty, gore, etc., seen as "excessive" by some

Many people who complain about "grimdark" or "gritty" fantasy are narrowly complaining about #5, and not #s 1-4.

Others are complaining about #s 1-4, but these complaints are not necessarily the same as those strictly complaining about #5.

Leads to people objecting (or as we later moderated it to 'taking issue with) the authors &/or writing.

It seemed a simple question, and a broad one. On the one hand we have Joe defending grit. On the other we have people (quite possibly Nerd) taking issue with grit on the 5 points. One main one being #5, the level of violence.

Joe was only moved to 'defend' grit because others 'took issue with it'. If others simply weren't interested there would be nothing to say.

So the question is: Why does the high level of violence in a book make 'you' take issue with it? Beyond saying 'I don't like this' what is your problem with it? What are you trying to achieve by taking issue/objecting to it?

I feel the answer to that question would move things on.

Now Nerd is completely ignoring me... No comment on that one ... but if any of you were to ask Nerd the same reasonable question Nerd might well answer. Unless it's the question that upset Nerd rather than whatever it was Nerd said about me not really being interested in the answer.

Just a thought.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Now Nerd is completely ignoring me...

... by walking away from an argument that was going nowhere and was replete with misunderstandings.

But just as we ought to make the thread not about Mark Lawrence, it's time that we stopped making Nerds_feather the topic, too.

I mean, how about that Joe Abercrombie, eh?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

... by walking away from an argument that was going nowhere and was replete with misunderstandings.

But just as we ought to make the thread not about Mark Lawrence, it's time that we stopped making Nerds_feather the topic, too.

I mean, how about that Joe Abercrombie, eh?

Well, I didn't hold it to be an argument and certainly not one that was going nowhere. It seemed like a discussion to me and one that was narrowing down rapidly on the issue.

But that's subjective

How about that Abercrombie? Not read him and without anyone to actually champion whatever mindset it is that 'grit' needs defending from ... well, there's nothing really to say.

Without someone who can argue a case against grit - and that's not the same as saying they personally don't enjoy it - we're done it would seem.

 

[Doug Hulick]

Probably people are being polite, but I'll be With regards Among Thieves (which I'm reading at the moment), it starts off with a gory torture scene that felt extremely gratuitous to me. But the rest of the book (so far) is nothing like that. It's dark, yes, and also quite violent. But the violence feels well edited, and I think the book is stronger for that. Maybe this scene came about for other reasons, but I suspect it was to "make a splash and get noticed."

FWIW, the book started that way because that's the way the book started when I sat down to write it. There wasn't any conscious calculation regarding the scene (mainly because when I started it, the "grimdark" upswing hadn't arguably started yet).

More interestingly, I'll note that the POV character actually isn't there for the torture itself--you just see some of the results. Now, part of this depends on how you define "gratuitous", of course, but most of the comments I've gotten about that scene assumed a greater degree of blood and active torture than was portrayed. I find that reaction particularly interesting and think it shows how we, as readers, can take what we see in our heads and transfer it back onto the page on top of what the writer actually wrote. I'm not saying that you can't still think it's gratuitous (who am I to tell you how to read a book, even one I write?); but in conversations with readers, I have noticed an unconscious ramping up in some instances, which I find fascinating.

Speaking to your other point, I think it's easy to fall under the assumption that a writer is writing something solely for the market, or to stand out, or what have you. More often than not, I find that isn't the case. Most writers write what they do because, ultimately, it's a story they like and want to tell. Yes, calculation might enter into some things (plot lines, reveals, scene lay outs, pacing, etc.), but it's never as simple as, "Hey, if I throw three more buckets of blood on the page, I'll have me a best seller!" Certainly I don't think Joe or Mark or anyone else mentioned in this thread is trying to consciously "up the ante" from book to book, in some sort of grisly body count game. They put in what they put in because they think it fits the story and, more importantly, because they think it makes it better in some way. Some people may not agree with that, and that's fine: in the end, its all about personal preferences. But it isn't done with some sort of titillation algorithm in mind. I can certainly understand how it may look that way from the outside, especially when a particular type of story is hot, but it's hardly ever than way on the inside of the process.

 

[Nerds_feather]

FWIW, the book started that way because that's the way the book started when I sat down to write it. There wasn't any conscious calculation regarding the scene (mainly because when I started it, the "grimdark" upswing hadn't arguably started yet).

More interestingly, I'll note that the POV character actually isn't there for the torture itself--you just see some of the results. Now, part of this depends on how you define "gratuitous", of course, but most of the comments I've gotten about that scene assumed a greater degree of blood and active torture than was portrayed. I find that reaction particularly interesting and think it shows how we, as readers, can take what we see in our heads and transfer it back onto the page on top of what the writer actually wrote. I'm not saying that you can't still think it's gratuitous (who am I to tell you how to read a book, even one I write?); but in conversations with readers, I have noticed an unconscious ramping up in some instances, which I find fascinating.

Speaking to your other point, I think it's easy to fall under the assumption that a writer is writing something solely for the market, or to stand out, or what have you. More often than not, I find that isn't the case. Most writers write what they do because, ultimately, it's a story they like and want to tell. Yes, calculation might enter into some things (plot lines, reveals, scene lay outs, pacing, etc.), but it's never as simple as, "Hey, if I throw three more buckets of blood on the page, I'll have me a best seller!" Certainly I don't think Joe or Mark or anyone else mentioned in this thread is trying to consciously "up the ante" from book to book, in some sort of grisly body count game. They put in what they put in because they think it fits the story and, more importantly, because they think it makes it better in some way. Some people may not agree with that, and that's fine: in the end, its all about personal preferences. But it isn't done with some sort of titillation algorithm in mind. I can certainly understand how it may look that way from the outside, especially when a particular type of story is hot, but it's hardly ever than way on the inside of the process.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for wading in with this very thoughtful reply. And welcome to the Chrons!

As far as the torture scene is concerned, I was just guessing how it came about, and apparently guessing wrong. What you are describing makes more sense, now that I've read it, since I already felt that one of the best ways to describe Among Thieves is "well-edited." So yeah...I stand corrected. And for the record, it really is a very good book so far.

As for the general point, Joe made a similar argument, and I think it makes a lot of sense if you restrict the view solely to writers' intentions. But the pressure might be coming from publishers (I suspect it is), and sometimes we can internalize norms and expectations and not even realize we are playing to them, when they are imbued with "power." To be the wrong kind of nerd for a second, that's the kind of thing social theorists like Foucault and Bourdieu talk about extensively.

 

[JoanDrake]

Why does everyone think "GrimDark" as it's defined above, is so new?

Conan the Barbarian, who I think needs no description to anyone reading, certainly seems to fit that bill.

Now, mind, Conan is why I started reading fantasy and largely what I've been trying to write ever since with, strangely, no success in being published whatsoever.

Maybe it's not entirely a matter of blood and death and gore and sex. Maybe there's something to this "talent" everyone talks about. (I'm going to keep trying anyway though.)

 

[Toby Frost]

I've been reading this with interest and I'm really impressed that authors come onto this forum to discuss this.

The tougher fantasy novels that I've read feel that they are trying to be realistic within their setting, in the same way that Aliens tries to be realistic in its setting. Perhaps some books try too hard. It's when all they do is the grim stuff that they become unrealistic. It always makes me think of George MacDonald Fraser's war memoirs, which involve a lot of the narrator and his comrades making jokes at each other. Then they fight a crazed battle in which many people die. Then they have a rest and some dinner and make more small talk.

That feels much more realistic than the "grim-faced legions" or "terrified conscripts" that would be in a more obviously grimdark setting, where everything has to be like a 13-year-old's idea of Stalingrad, permanently.

The "Zero Punctuation" review of one of the Gears of War games said it quite well. The characters had only two modes of speech: hard-jawed defiance or gallows humour about their last kill, and that made them unrealistic. I suppose what I'm getting round to saying is that a realistic book would pay attention to the lighter moments of life as well, whatever they are, and would know when the mood of the story was changing or when it seemed to clash with the general tone. Obviously some situations are straight-up horrible, but most aren't, and hence the tone has to change as required.

Otherwise you're left with the literary equivalent of a Morrissey record. And that really would be a grim experience.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I've been reading this with interest and I'm really impressed that authors come onto this forum to discuss this.

The tougher fantasy novels that I've read feel that they are trying to be realistic within their setting, in the same way that Aliens tries to be realistic in its setting. Perhaps some books try too hard. It's when all they do is the grim stuff that they become unrealistic. It always makes me think of George MacDonald Fraser's war memoirs, which involve a lot of the narrator and his comrades making jokes at each other. Then they fight a crazed battle in which many people die. Then they have a rest and some dinner and make more small talk.

That feels much more realistic than the "grim-faced legions" or "terrified conscripts" that would be in a more obviously grimdark setting, where everything has to be like a 13-year-old's idea of Stalingrad, permanently.

The "Zero Punctuation" review of one of the Gears of War games said it quite well. The characters had only two modes of speech: hard-jawed defiance or gallows humour about their last kill, and that made them unrealistic. I suppose what I'm getting round to saying is that a realistic book would pay attention to the lighter moments of life as well, whatever they are, and would know when the mood of the story was changing or when it seemed to clash with the general tone. Obviously some situations are straight-up horrible, but most aren't, and hence the tone has to change.

Otherwise you're left with the literary equivalent of a Morrissey record. And that really would be a grim experience.

Do we have any examples of these unrelentingly grim novels? I'm not saying they don't exist - just I've not read one and I've not seen anyone name one.

 

[Toby Frost]

Off the top of my head, no, I don't. (I've not read your books, by the way, so I'm not commenting on them at all). The best example I can think of are the Death's Head books by David Gunn, which aren't fantasy but are self-consciously Sven Hassel in space. I read them as being tongue in cheek (it even says in the blurb that the author sleeps with a gun under his pillow, IIRC), but if they aren't, then they'd surely qualify.

I do think, however, that a book can "go too far" for a while and then come back, and I can think of examples of that. To give an example, I felt that Last Argument of Kings went slightly too far in places, not in terms of violence but in cynicism. I also felt that A Game of Thrones hammered the point of "life in pseudo-medieval England was not continual joy" a bit hard, which I'm sure will keep George Martin awake at night. I wonder whether the sense of unrelenting grimness comes from games as well, which often overlap somewhat with novels re art, cross-over titles and so on. It might be that people are objecting to fantasy on the whole becoming bleaker and not just fantasy novels.

(I've not read them (always a bad way to start a recommendation) but I've heard many people say that Terry Goodkind takes the nastiness too far (although he isn't of the newer wave of fantasy writers).)

So if the question is "Where is all this horribleness?" the answer is "If it's there, there's not much of it, and the troublesome stuff may not even involve books so much as bits of them." That said, there aren't that many big fantasy titles per year, or not many of them get much publicity, so perhaps one book, or even parts of one book, can seem to have a disproportionate influence.

 

[Ursa major]

Do we have any examples of these unrelentingly grim novels? I'm not saying they don't exist - just I've not read one and I've not seen anyone name one.

The problem might be that if a book's early chapters were unrelentingly grim, many (most?) people who don't really enjoy the "Morrissey experience" aren't going to continue reading to the end in order to discover that part of the book which isn't unrelentingly grim. I don't think this is anything to do with the grimness; I'm not sure a book that is unrelentingly one-note (any note) would be particularly interesting, if only because of the lack of contrast**, so I would also have problems with a book that was unrelentingly saccharine.


** - Having, unfortunately, sat through (supposedly classical) music that was continuously loud, I soon found that it lost any effect that the loudness was supposed to deliver and became merely annoying (and loud).

 

[Rolynd]

I find this a really interesting discusion, and if it gets a bit heated I don't think mods need to worry too much, we're all adults and provided no one is name calling we can all take it can't we?

As i said I find this interesting, but I genuinely feel the core issue of grimdark encroaching other fantasy isnt a threat, I just don't see it really. There's plenty of books out there that are bit easier going if that's what you want. The only thread I've ever started on the chrons was explaining that GRRM series was too grim for me and it was losing me. I think it might be because I had preconceived ideas of fantasy and a song of ice and fire was challenging them. Once I realised this I altered my expectations and carried on with the series, thoroughly enjoying it.

I think people need to accept that their idea of a fantasy novel is not the only acceptable one any more. And the idea that characters in books doing horrible things a lot of the time in some way reflects a "weirdness" in the reader enjoying the book or the author is ridiculous. How staid and boring would books be if all characters act within our real life moral framework?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Off the top of my head, no, I don't. (I've not read your books, by the way, so I'm not commenting on them at all). The best example I can think of are the Death's Head books by David Gunn, which aren't fantasy but are self-consciously Sven Hassel in space. I read them as being tongue in cheek (it even says in the blurb that the author sleeps with a gun under his pillow, IIRC), but if they aren't, then they'd surely qualify.

I do think, however, that a book can "go too far" for a while and then come back, and I can think of examples of that. To give an example, I felt that Last Argument of Kings went slightly too far in places, not in terms of violence but in cynicism. I also felt that A Game of Thrones hammered the point of "life in pseudo-medieval England was not continual joy" a bit hard, which I'm sure will keep George Martin awake at night. I wonder whether the sense of unrelenting grimness comes from games as well, which often overlap somewhat with novels re art, cross-over titles and so on. It might be that people are objecting to fantasy on the whole becoming bleaker and not just fantasy novels.

(I've not read them (always a bad way to start a recommendation) but I've heard many people say that Terry Goodkind takes the nastiness too far (although he isn't of the newer wave of fantasy writers).)

So if the question is "Where is all this horribleness?" the answer is "If it's there, there's not much of it, and the troublesome stuff may not even involve books so much as bits of them." That said, there aren't that many big fantasy titles per year, or not many of them get much publicity, so perhaps one book, or even parts of one book, can seem to have a disproportionate influence.

My intuition is leaning toward the 'gritty' problem being largely an issue of creating an evil 'other' out of caricature to demonise. It hits me like Fox News crusading against 'THE LIBERAL MEDIA' ... uh.. please point at it.

People see a tale that isn't as upbeat and heroic as their usual fare. They pick out some lines that in isolation paint it even darker. Others take that impression second hand and a myth evolves. The unrelenting the-world-is-**** book.

Again, I've not read an enormous amount of current fantasy. If such books exist and someone can point me at them I would be very interested.

I will add the observation that books (unless you're GRRM) tend to be about (or at least from the PoV of) a rather small number of people. If you write a book about the criminal underworld of a big city (let's say New York) at a time of specific gang-land rivalries for example, from the PoV of say two or three protagonists at the heart of the conflict... then things may look grim. That's not to say that in the highrises all around them parents aren't loving their new baby, great poetry isn't being written, some else isn't rising above conflict and bringing peace to the world... the story isn't saying the-whole-world-is-****, it's just showing a small corner of the world from PoVs that may prove interesting.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

The problem might be that if a book's early chapters were unrelentingly grim, many (most?) people who don't really enjoy the "Morrissey experience" aren't going to continue reading to the end in order to discover that part of the book which isn't unrelentingly grim. I don't think this is anything to do with the grimness; I'm not sure a book that is unrelentingly one-note (any note) would be particularly interesting, if only because of the lack of contrast**, so I would also have problems with a book that was unrelentingly saccharine.


** - Having, unfortunately, sat through (supposedly classical) music that was continuously loud, I soon found that it lost any effect that the loudness was supposed to deliver and became merely annoying (and loud).

I find a conflict between the idea of 'a few chapters' and 'unrelenting'. To reduce to the absurd: The first line was unrelentingly grim. So I stopped.

 

[Ursa major]

To reduce to the absurd: The first line was unrelentingly grim. So I stopped.

Here's a good (albeit shocking) idea: let's not reduce things to the absurd. That way, we might get somewhere.

I find a conflict between the idea of 'a few chapters' and 'unrelenting'.

I know the general reader may not have the forensic reading ability of, say a reader for an agency or imprint, but if a partial is enough (sometimes more than enough) to judge that something is unsuitable for publication (for whatever reason, e.g. writing ability, marketability), they should be enough to allow a reader to decide whether they want to continue reading. But I think the key is in the word, unrelenting. Chapter after chapter with no change in tone seems, to me, to be a good indicator of things to come. With so many books out there to read, and so little time to read them, why would one persist in reading something that seems to lack variety of tone?


By the way, I haven't yet read Prince of Thorns, but I feel confident in believing your book's early** chapters aren't unrelentingly*** one-note, and I know, for example, that GRRM's and Joe's early chapters are not either.



** - I realise that your chapters seem quite short (which is fine by me), so obviously I'd have to read a few more of them to make my decision.

*** - Yes, I know that Robin Hobb says, on the cover of my copy, "Dark and relentless ..." but I always take such comments with pinch of salt.

 

[Rolynd]

Here's a good (albeit shocking) idea: let's not reduce things to the absurd. That way, we might get somewhere.


I know the general reader may not have the forensic reading ability of, say a reader for an agency or imprint, but if a partial is enough (sometimes more than enough) to judge that something is unsuitable for publication (for whatever reason, e.g. writing ability, marketability), they should be enough to allow a reader to decide whether they want to continue reading. But I think the key is in the word, unrelenting. Chapter after chapter with no change in tone seems, to me, to be a good indicator of things to come. With so many books out there to read, and so little time to read them, why would one persist in reading something that seems to lack variety of tone?


By the way, I haven't yet read Prince of Thorns, but I feel confident in believing your book's early** chapters aren't unrelentingly*** one-note, and I know, for example, that GRRM's and Joe's early chapters are not either.



** - I realise that your chapters seem quite short (which is fine by me), so obviously I'd have to read a few more of them to make my decision.

*** - Yes, I know that Robin Hobb says, on the cover of my copy, "Dark and relentless ..." but I always take such comments with pinch of salt.

Again this is where it seems to me that those wary or disliking of the grimdark encroachment are arguing against a state of affairs that doesn't actually exist.

You're absolutely right Ursula, a one tone book of constant and truly unrelenting grimness probably wouldn't work, but such a book doesn't actually exist. You just mentioned how you don't think GRRM, Joe or even Mark do this, and yet they are at the forefront of this Grimdark invasion people seem to be worried about.

If they're not doing it, who actually is?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Here's a good (albeit shocking) idea: let's not reduce things to the absurd. That way, we might get somewhere.

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate element of debate that has been getting people places since the time of the ancient Greeks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's not an insult, it's an illustration of the danger of following that line of thought and a hint that you may already have gone too far down it.

I know the general reader may not have the forensic reading ability of, say a reader for an agency or imprint, but if a partial is enough (sometimes more than enough) to judge that something is unsuitable for publication (for whatever reason, e.g. writing ability, marketability), they should be enough to allow a reader to decide whether they want to continue reading. But I think the key is in the word, unrelenting. Chapter after chapter with no change in tone seems, to me, to be a good indicator of things to come. With so many books out there to read, and so little time to read them, why would one persist in reading something that seems to lack variety of tone?

That all rather stands on what you consider to be unrelenting and how many chapter after chapters are required to constitute it. I would say that the tone in many books changes paragraph by paragraph.

*** - Yes, I know that Robin Hobb says, on the cover of my copy, "Dark and relentless ..." but I always take such comments with pinch of salt.

But not "Unrelentingly dark" which she probably would have said if that was what she meant, cos she's hot stuff with the words an' all.

 

[Boneman]

Well actually, since we've mentioned Terry Goodkind, (Toby, above) I'd like to ask Nerds Feather and Fishbowl Helmet: why haven't you objected to him, and brought his writing up in the argument? A gang-rape of a queen by a horde of the worst degenerates in a pit in a prison doesn't count as dark? A mother confessor who wields such power over people that she castrates a child rapist and he takes it, because she ensorcled him? And kills a sixteen year old boy just to make a point to other 16 year-old boys? The graphic torture of the MC over many chapters and who is subjected to male rape by his female captors? The torture to death of innocent children to gain access to the spirit world by an entirely unreedemable Darken Rahl? (a tube full of molten lead into the mouth of a child buried up to his neck in sand, IIRC). The skinning of a friend by one apprentice wizard who is promised the rape of another girl as his reward? The list goes on and on and on, and it's graphic and salacious and not very good writing. Don't even get me started on Emperor Jagang and the gang-rapes of whole populations, with rings inserted into the lips of the best, so they can be classified as shaggable or not.

Why are NF and FH wasting their time attacking Joe Abercrombie and Mark Lawrence when this type of best-selling author continues to propagate the most appalling trash (I think there were 12 books in the series - oh... no, he's just returned to that world with another one!) and why aren't they 'objecting' to it? It couldn't be because TG is American, could it?

I almost feel as though I've been reading different books than some of the posters here*: Glotka is a torturer - within his world, that's his job and he does a good job as far as his employers are concerned. In Joe's battles swords, spears,daggers, clubs, knives, rocks and staves are all used to try to kill the person who's trying to kill you with the same weapons. Blood flows, limbs break, gore ensues, as it would (also known as realistically) and the good guy wins. Trying to debate whether that is moral or immoral is a pointless waste of time - you might as well have a go at Tolkein for writing the character of Sauron. It's fiction in a fictional world and it fits the story. Fine, write a story where Glotka doesn't exist but some super-sleuth-spy character finds out everything that's needed, and he's kind to kittens and rescues damsels in distress and wears a white hat (Luke Skywalker, I'm looking at you, here...), and then you'll be happy. And maybe even sell books. But criticising Joe and Mark because of an agenda that you hold personally, whilst it is your perogative (and reasoned argument is something this community is rightly proud of) it needs to be backed up with more than empty rhetoric, and thus far I've seen very little.

For the record: I've read Joe Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy (and Red Country) and I'm looking forward getting his other books.* Because of this debate I reread The Blade Itself, to see whether I had been missing anything, and guess what? I don't like Glotka as a character (still think one of his victim's relatives would try for a shot at him from a high building with a crossbow - sorry: flatbow) but I'm not supposed to like him!! But boy, does he make interesting reading, and I'm pretty certain I'm not going to slide into the dark side, myself, because the whole fictional story has affected me. It was a great read (actually, better the second time around!) and I'm setting out on the rest of the trilogy again, so thanks for that - might not have done it if not for this thread.

For the record: I've read Mark Lawrence's Prince of Thorns and King of Thorns and I'm looking forward to Emperor of Thorns. When the 'interesting essay on POT was posted' I thought "Whoa! There are rapes??? I must have missed them, I don't recall them at all!!" So I re-read POT and entirely missed the rape of the MC's mother and had to have it pointed out to me. The other 68 words covering the second rape were so ungraphic that it's no surprise I'd forgotten them, because actually, they're not central to the plot, (unlike Goodkind's) they show, in a pretty sanitised way, the consequences of brutality and war. And I missed it. Actually, tbh I realised I was reading fiction, and it was in keeping with the world I'd been drawn into.

For me the incredible inventiveness of Mark in rescuing the hero from ever-deepening danger is one of the delights of the books, along with the (yes, often gallows) humour. Each time I think 'how's he going to get out of this?' and I'm always surprised at the answer. To read Mark's work is to accompany the hero as he grows up in a post-apocalyptic barbaric world, where (and this is a point I feel has been entirely missed in any discussion I've read here or elsewhere) he is attempting to impose order on the world. Yes, he fights those who oppose him what did you expect? Yes, as a tortured and traumatised 13 year-old he visits trauma on others. But his character arc is deepening as the books go along. Saying you don't want to read someone who is brutal and a mysoginist is to miss witnessing the path of his change. [Let's be honest, Saruman was a good guy gone bad - he'd killed thousands, aligned himself with the worst mass killer in Middle Earth's history, and we didn't like him, but we wanted to read on to find out what happened to him.]

Spoiler alert for book 2 which is central to my argument, so please read book 2 first: Jorg kills his brother, a tiny baby, but guess what? When he arrives to do the deed, he chooses not to. "I will burn the world if it defies me, carry ruin to every corner, but I will not kill my brother" Unfortunately the necromancy that he has been infected with has already killed his brother as he held him, and it's part of Sageaous's plan, who has manipulated him at every turn. Maybe Jorg's not so bad? When he marries (a political one to forge an alliance) he's expected to consumate the marriage or he may not have the support of troops he desperately needs. But she's only 12 years old... no problem for a mysoginist rapist is it? But he fakes it, cutting himself to provide evidence of deflowering. Hmm, not quite in keeping with his character is it? His main opponent the Prince Of Arrows is a thoroughly decent chap, but their armies are battering the hell out of each other (Jorg hopelessly outnumbered, but Mark's incredible inventiveness levels the playing field here and there)and Jorg is a degenerate hopelessly barbaric baby-killing rapist isn't he? So why does he say this about his opponent: "I think that I would have followed him and called him emperor. I hope that I would have."


And that's the problem with making your mind up about a character from snippets, or other people's arguments, you never get the full story, unless you read the whole book. I'd like to change something I said in response to Randomofamber: I said read reviews and browse the book in a store and then choose. Don't rely on reviews, allow them to guide you into picking up the book and making your own mind up. If you think POT is all about rape and mysoginist barbaric killers, and you don't want to read it, or anything of the further story, that's your choice, but then you're missing (in my opinion, which you're entirely free to ignore) one of the most absorbing character studies I've ever read, blended into a fantastic tale that is both surprising and enthralling - I'm not sure the last time I was so interested in finding out what happens to a character in future books, but it has to be Kvothe, I'm certain.