# Dark Lord? No thanks, I'm already choking on clichÃ©s.



## At Dusk I Reign

We've all been down this road.

You've bought a book, possibly swayed by reviews, possibly as a random purchase. Before long you're delving beneath the (frequently) garish covers, eager to be transported to a world far removed from daily worries. 

Things go well to begin with. It's all there: believable, sympathetic characters, a well-realised world, silly place names with too many syllables to reasonably fit inside the human mouth.

Then you stumble. The villain appears.

He's the Dark Lord (seldom the Dark Lady – equality doesn't exist by torchlight, apparently). Dark in thought, dark in deed. 

He may even have glowing eyes.

He wants the heroes dead. He wants all living things subjugated. He wants to cover the world in eternal darkness.

What he never seems to ask himself is: why bother? 

Perhaps introspection is something far beyond the average supernatural evil-doer (and most of them do seem to have supernatural powers of some sort – wouldn't it be nice if for once the antagonist was a grumpy old grandmother with corns and an unreasoning hatred of music played on the lute?) Either way, it's all a bit of a bummer for anyone who's already waded through thousands of pages of the same old thing.

Dark Lords don't interest me any more. I'm too used to them. Their very existence elicits a feeling good fiction should never conjure: boredom. I want more Grey Lords. I want to reach the end of a novel and think: 'hold on, I thought he was the bad guy? Was he right all along?'

I realise most books in the genre involve epic tales of good versus evil, and there's nothing wrong with that: I'm happy to cheer on the heroes as they overcome adversity and make the world safe for kittens. It'd just be nice if more authors introduced an element of ambiguity in regard to the villain. Said malefactor doesn't necessarily have to be sympathetic (though he may become so through proper characterisation), but his motives should at least be understandable. Doing dirty deeds simply for the sake of it just doesn't cut it any more, at least not for me.

Perhaps I'm just peculiar, though. That's always a possibility. What do you look for in your villains, fellow readers? Do you expect more, or have we been conditioned over time to accept less?


----------



## Donny Bruso

Fantasy, due to Tolkien's example, has always been largely a white vs. black category of literature. It is unfortunate, because I have rarely, if ever met a person who I could classify as completely good or completely evil. The world exists in shades of grey, and I think that some of the better fantasy authors are starting to paint their characters that way. Martin, Abercrombie, Cook, etc.

I agree with you that giving ambiguity to the characters makes it more realistic and often a better story. People are too complex to be defined as any one thing. If your villain wants to conquer the world, he should have a solid, semi-reasonable chain of logic for wanting to do so, or just be flat out of his gourd nuts. Realistically, I think smaller goals are more reasonable. He wants to usurp the King because his brother was legally and fairly executed for something. Or maybe unfairly. He wants to control the country for that one reason, and decides that the ends justify the means.

The other thing, is that just because said villain is focused on domination for some reason, doesn't mean he can't be doing something good in his spare time. Maybe he give outrageously to beggars. Maybe he rescues kittens from evil dragons. Maybe he rescues kittens from evil dragons, then takes them home and eats them. I think I said this in another thread, but every 'good' character has conflict built into their personality. Villains should be no different.

The easiest example I can think of to demonstrate this as I digress farther and farther from the topic, is an atheistic priest. One who has comprehensively studied the bible(or other holy tome) and can alternately sit and preach at you about how God loves you, and rail about how God doesn't exist, so everything he's been preaching to you about for the last two hours is nonsense. It makes the character almost inherently interesting, because now you're wondering why he's such a knowledgeable and gifted priest when he's an atheist. You sink your hook into the reader with conflict, and villains should be no less conflicted than anyone else.


----------



## Chilari

Didn't David Gemmell write an atheist priest in one of his novels? Can't think which; it's a while since I've read them.

But yes, I agree. Dark Lords are boring. They're narrative devices, not characters. In the story I'm writing at the moment, my two main characters are in conflict with each other, but neither one is completely in the right or completely in the wrong; and they both have to learn that there are shades of grey, that the other isn't evil, and that theirs isn't the only point of view. However, they both have their causes to fight for, even as they start to respect each other, and in the end they've got choices to make about which option is the "right thing". I'm writing it because I find it interesting to explore their relationship and the way their choices influence their perceptions of each other. To me, that's far more interesting that a good guy fighting against a bad guy.

It also means the ending isn't a foregone conclusion. In your boring Dark Lord story, it's obvious that the good guys will win and the Dark Lord will be defeated and the world will once again become a happy and healthy place, with freedom and flowers and kittens and stuff. But where you've got characters with interesting personalities and diverse motives and conflicting morals (which doesn't mean someone is Right and someone is Wrong), there is no way for the reader to predict who will come out on top, how the conflicts will be resolved, or how the world might be changed by the end of the book. Which is far more fun to read than the old good vs evil: who will win? With that you've only got the how - how will good overcome evil - and not the what - what will happen? - or the who - who will die, who will succeed, whose goals will be realised, whose will be crushed?


----------



## Neunzehn

I've never understood why the dark lords want to destroy the entire world, as if existence itself is what they hate. In LOTR Sauron at least has a vision for Middle Earth (Also he is so old that there was no need to describe his decent into evil).

As far as the "gray areas" are concerned, I don't believe in them. Many actions and predicaments may seem ambiguous but there are always intentions behind them which dictate their morality. Thorough blackness in the soul a villain makes (notice I didn't say antagonist). This not to say that any character should be completely evil or Good. However the actions and thoughts that build up a character are.


----------



## Amanita

Oh yes, Dark Lords. What do I expect? 
Many fantasy stories live depend on a powerful evil entity who’s not ambigious put more of a personification of evil. Like almost everything this can work well if written well and doesn’t work if not. In such stories, evil is more of an archetype or a metaphor for things in real life and not expected to be realistic.
Something I generally dislike are one-dimensional Dark Lords who are supposed to be human or at least have been that and act like examples of the first group anyway. Sometimes, those are so absurdly evil and stupid that it’s hardly to understand why they have plenty of human followers (such as Voldemort in the last book) or they and everyone who supports them is called absolutely evil by the narrative but we never find out why. (Eragon is an example of this.)
If the villain is human, he or she should be human and have human motivations.

I do think that many fantasy readers expect a certain division between good and evil and an obvious moral division between hero and villain. This might be part of the desire to escape the complicated real world, I’m not sure.
Personally, I like to have fantastical issues prominent in the story. A story that’s only about the question if ambitious noble A or ambitious noble B makes it into the favour of the king doesn’t interest me at all. 
And a Dark Lord as in example one offers a fantastical issue and sets the stakes very high.


----------



## Digital_Fey

Donny Bruso said:
			
		

> Fantasy, due to Tolkien's example, has always been largely a white vs. black category of literature.



While I'd be the first to admit that heinous crimes have been committed whilst trying to follow in Tolkien's footsteps, I don't think the blame for this particular issue can be laid on his doorstep. Tolkien himself was imitating a much older formula - the white knight is good, the black knight is not. Most myths and folktales present one race/character/group as being pure and the other evil, allowing of course for traitors on both sides to keep things interesting - although their motives are seldom very complex.

I am highly in favor of more Grey Lords - or even better, no Lords at all. Perfectly ordinary people are capable of doing terrible things through sheer stupidity, grief, stubbornness or any other of a hundred very human reasons. Who needs some crafty bugger in a black cloak with a load of orcs at his command anyway?


----------



## Behelit

Omnipotent narratives will definitely provide you that greater sense of stark evil. Try writing from a different POV. Could you prove that same character a be-all end-all villain with equal definition? Come to think of it, you can. Misinformation is a powerful tool. Also, focusing on the 'Dark Lord' is picturing the destination and not relishing the journey.

I do agree there is an unrealism to pure evils(except I'd be hard-pressed to find a scholar looking for some good in Hitler) and life is more accurately colored in shades of gray. Like Amanita said, its nice to escape from that constant and I mean CONSTANT questioning of what is and isn't. The moment you define something you are making it black or white. That's where some people tend to bring out that struggle, trying to find definition. If you make the "villain" out to be right all along, you aren't creating a gray, you are merely role reversing and still finding something to be right and wrong(aka black vs white).

I don't always care for the growing number of novels/screenplays that clearly attempt to humanize people that have acted disdainfully and demonize what would 'normally' be a good person. What is that teaching me? Bad people do good things and good people do bad things? That just leads me to knee-jerk harder towards mistrust of people in general. I'm not religious, but can anyone give me an example of a character of faith with some zeal that does not personify hypocrisy? 

Conflicts between a hero and a villain is not the only way to write a novel. You can make an antagonist out of an object or nature. You could also write a hero or heroes to be unsuccessful at their direct attempt at overthrowing an evil yet their efforts cause an uprising, sparking a fire in the hearts of the people that ultimately leads to a positive resolution. Or negative, for that matter.


----------



## Telcontar

I can still be cool with Dark Lords, if they are done incredibly well. They have to be Evil with a lot of style. Keep me distracted with how charismatic the guy is and I won't care as much that he has little depth.

However, the problem is that it's difficult to have a 2D bad guy, and then give your protagonists any depth of their own. Chances are your whole book is shallow, in which case there's no reason to read it. 

In other words, The Dark Lord is a beloved fantasy trope, and can still be pulled off in this day and age. Maybe for a quick Swords and Sorcery read. It takes far more talent to pull off that, though, than to just flesh out the character a little and remove his Dark Lordiness.


----------



## Donny Bruso

@Digital_Fey - You're right, Tolkien didn't invent the pattern, but nearly every person who loves fantasy has read Tolkien, or at the very least is familiar with the story; and he is widely considered to be (erroneously in my opinion) the definition of epic fantasy. More or less what I was getting at is that a lot of people are sheep and follow what has come before, so they follow Tolkien's example.


----------



## Digital_Fey

Agreed about the sheep comment, DB. As Pratchett says rather succinctly, "Most modern fantasy just re-arranges the furniture in Tolkien's attic..."


----------



## JBryden88

... I once toyed around with the concept of having a story where the characters get psyched out over a big bad dark lord, they're ready to face him, only to discover it was a hoax to weaken the resolve of their countrymen, thus the heroes can do nothing, as its too little too late, there's no dark lord to kill, and morale is already shattered. The heroes die as a result.

... one of many discarded ideas.


----------



## Behelit

JBryden88 said:


> ... I once toyed around with the concept of having a story where the characters get psyched out over a big bad dark lord, they're ready to face him, only to discover it was a hoax to weaken the resolve of their countrymen, thus the heroes can do nothing, as its too little too late, there's no dark lord to kill, and morale is already shattered. The heroes die as a result.
> 
> ... one of many discarded ideas.



I know it's a discarded idea, but that scenario would still require there be someone or a number of people to initiate that degree of misguiding and the heroes are still being killed. Unless of course they killed themselves? That would be wicked and twisted to do.

Without doubt, with the concept polished and then written well it could still be a great read.


----------



## DameiThiessen

I rather like it when it's a whole organization - faceless and omnipotent - that's the bad guy. It's so much scarier when you don't have one character to focus on, because you can't feel oppressed and in danger if it's one king and his minions. When it's whole system, and citizens are brainwashed and scared into fighting the protagonist, it makes the story so much more thrilling.

Of course, I don't know if I'm talented enough to write a story like that. But I like reading them. As much as they freak me out.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I love, love, _love_ Henrik Ibsen's _A Doll's House_, and one of the things I love about it is that Ibsen never tells you who you're supposed to agree with. Modern readers would at least conclude that Torvald is wrong, but it's completely up in the air whether Nora is right. Much of my reading has been attempts to find something else that good, and much of my writing has attempted to mimic that same air of neutrality.

In short, agreeing with OP: it charms me when a story has the guts to make its antagonist something other than purely evil.


----------



## ThinkerX

My 'Dark Lord(s)' include a number of very powerful Lovecraftian things; who for quite a while, have been mismanaging a large nation 'behind the scenes'.  However, thats just it: save for a few fanatics (unfortunately at the very top *BECAUSE* of their Lovecraftian sponsors), those creatures are usually, but not always behind the scenes.  These Lovecraftian entities have an utterly alien agenda all their own for the planet, but are so alien to the world they can't quite pull it off.  

Or to put it another way, in Lovecrafts tales, every now and again, the 'good' people did score a victory of sorts; cults of elder gods destroyed, the elder gods themselves bound, and what I'm writing is something of an elaboration on that - one where the elder gods are hurled back, but at horrendous cost, and meanwhile the world is changing technologically and socially.


----------



## ArielFingolfin

As has been pointed out before in another thread, fantasy is where the good vs. evil battle is continuously playing out. Therefore it makes sense to have a villian that's pretty much evil. However, that doesn't mean the villian has to be evil for no reason. Even Sauron had a reason for his villiany and a pretty well thought out back story if you read the Silmarillion. And while I enjoy villians with some good (and heroes with some villiany), I'm not opposed to someone who's completely beyond redemption so long as there's a reason for that. No one wakes up and decides to be evil; there's always a path to it. Even if it's not spelled out, you can usually tell when it's there.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Even Tolkien was not without some characters who are difficult to categorise though.  Saruman was a proud and reliable spirit, the head of the Istari and the White Council before he fell from grace.  Gollum is perhaps the biggest victim of the piece (being a hobbit originally), and Boromir just became misguided in his desperation to save his people.  Denethor and Grima are also pitiful, weak characters who hinder the protagonists.


----------



## Mindfire

I have a group in my mythos roughly equivalent to dark lords. This article has inspired me to name them "the Grey Lords" or "the Grey Legion" just for the sake of irony. xD


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I've got no problem with a dark lord, it just has to make sense. A guy who goes around being evil and destructive isn't going to garner a lot of followers, because they're all going to be violent psychopaths, and such people simply cannot cooperate to the level needed for large-scale oppression. So then there has to be some sort of large-scale magic involved, e.g. the dark lord has such immense magic powers that he actually *can* oppress thousands or millions of people at once, or he has a large corps of mind-controlled soldiers who carry out his will. Something like that.

But in general, antagonists who believe they're in the right (e.g. Lannisters) are much scarier.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Personally, I look for villains that are either misdirected or misunderstood. There's very little 'take over the world' motives that can be believable. I prefer the villains I write to be tragic - meaning they're essentially good, but have one major flaw. Whether that flaw be pride or inflexibility is up to me at the time I write them. But this makes the story interesting in my opinion. People in real life are rarely all good or all bad. It's important to me that my writing reflects that element of reality.


----------



## Ireth

Rikilamaro said:


> Personally, I look for villains that are either misdirected or misunderstood. There's very little 'take over the world' motives that can be believable. I prefer the villains I write to be tragic - meaning they're essentially good, but have one major flaw. Whether that flaw be pride or inflexibility is up to me at the time I write them. But this makes the story interesting in my opinion. People in real life are rarely all good or all bad. It's important to me that my writing reflects that element of reality.



I think the villain of _Low Road_ might fall into your interests. Conall is completely insane and seen by the hero as evil, but he sincerely believes he's doing the right thing for his people, providing them with a steady supply of humans to feed from, and even providing for the human captives' needs in a twisted way, by feeding them the flesh of their slain companions. (Waste not, want not!) The Goddess responsible for creating the vampires even tells them that they are to take humans as well as animals for their prey, so Conall is serving Her quite well in doing so. It's not his fault he was made what he is by a Goddess of darkness and death.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Thanks, Ireth. Who is that by?


----------



## Ireth

It's one of my own WIPs.  Maybe I should have stated that earlier.


----------



## ArielFingolfin

Shameless plug, Ireth


----------



## Ireth

Heheh. Yeah. ^^;


----------



## Kaellpae

How about the dark lords are already in charge and they weren't seeking to destroy the world, but to rebuild it in a way that they thought would work better? But it required many deaths and were seen as being evil, even if they were doing it for the betterment? of the world.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Ireth said:


> It's one of my own WIPs.  Maybe I should have stated that earlier.



The funny thing I think I knew that from a previous post or twelve you'e made. 
It made me laugh at least.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Kaellpae said:


> How about the dark lords are already in charge and they weren't seeking to destroy the world, but to rebuild it in a way that they thought would work better? But it required many deaths and were seen as being evil, even if they were doing it for the betterment? of the world.



So you're starting out with the dark lord in charge? Do you think this would be best as a recent change or something that's been the status quo for decades? Just curious.


----------



## Kaellpae

Status quo for a long time. The "Dark Lords" are a group of scientists that have made themselves immortal. So it will take place after everyone had forgotten the old ways.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Kaellpae said:


> Status quo for a long time. The "Dark Lords" are a group of scientists that have made themselves immortal. So it will take place after everyone had forgotten the old ways.



Like Eragon?


----------



## Kaellpae

I actually don't know. I've never read Eragon! It's on my list of things to read though!


----------



## Devor

I like the idea of subverting the Dark Lord trope.  Maybe there's a medieval Lord, with a stretch of land, who is in fact a freed slave and the protagonist.


----------



## gavintonks

I know get over it already when he has killed everyone no one left to work for his bidding for one, and he always makes some daft mistake in judgement that is so stupid your slug would make a better dark prince


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> I like the idea of subverting the Dark Lord trope.  Maybe there's a medieval Lord, with a stretch of land, who is in fact a freed slave and the protagonist.



My favorite dark lord protagonist is Gauldoth Half-Dead from _Heroes of Might and Magic IV_. He knows exactly what happens to dark lords who get overambitious, so he just tries to maintain control of his own kingdom and defend it from threats even worse than himself.


----------



## Jabrosky

I don't mind Dark Lords per se, but I prefer mine to have more moderate and realistic goals than taking over or destroying the entire world. For instance, why not a despot who simply wanted to conquer a neighboring country (the protagonist's homeland) to control its resources? History abounds with such warlords.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Kaellpae your idea actually sounds a lot like Brandon Sanderson's first Mistborn novel. What with Lord Emperor being a sliver of infinity and all.


----------



## Steerpike

Kaellpae said:


> I actually don't know. I've never read Eragon! It's on my list of things to read though!



Don't do it!


----------



## Graylorne

Well, I got a Dark Goddess who wants to destroy the Universe.

She's got a really good argument: jealousy.

Her other half created it, but not to her liking. So she wants to replace it with her own version. That she has to kill off all of humanity isn't important; to her they're just figments of her imagination.

Spite is an acceptable reason, I'd say?


----------



## Christopher Wright

A Dark Lord that is a Dark Lord because he is a Dark Lord is pretty boring. That said, a Dark Lord can still hold my interest if the reason he becomes a Dark Lord is sufficiently explained and is entertaining, and his aims are slightly more complex than "one Dark Lord to Rule Them All."

For example, if the Dark Lord is a Dark Lord because he's been driven insane, I have a little more to work with. If he's a Dark Lord because he's trying to save all creation and has to play dirty to do it, I have a little more to work with. If he considers all that is pure and good an abomination to the natural order of things, and his "evil" is closer to "religious fervor," that's interesting as well. (It could still be legitimately evil from the narrative perspective, but if he sees it as holiness then his motivations become much clearer.)

What I think is fun is when you go both ways--you set up "absolute" realms of morality but place all the characters in various shades of gray between them, so that both the good and evil characters are flawed in terms of their allegiances. NOte that this is different from the concept that there is no real good or evil--that is also interesting, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a story where the good guys consistently fall short of their ideals because they *simply can't meet them* and therefore have to figure out how to handle that level of failure while still trying to score points for their side, and the same for the bad guys, but in the other direction. That kind of interplay fascinates me. I don't see it much.


----------



## Helleaven

I do have a dark lord who has an entire history behind him.. Why is he full of hatred?? Why does he aim to kill anyone who oppose him?? 

That's readers job to find out but they have to wait until the last book of the series for it. Everything MUST have a logical reason! 

Nothing is born evil or born good! If something is created to do evil and this is the only thing that thing has ever known, it's just doesn't make sense to me. He's evil because that's what he all knows and that's what he is created for... NOPE! If you are writing a fairy tail and not a fantasy novel, that would work. If you're writing a fantasy novel, you have to give everything a logical and understandable reason.


----------



## Jess A

Oh, c'mon...I like a Dark Lord sometimes, as long as the rest of the story is gripping. Other times I prefer a realistic grey antagonist/protagonist. I have a bit of a nutcase character in the first novel, but he is only a small part of the plot. He has an entire history, though, and a reason for being the way he is. And he isn't _evil_. I have a problem with 'pure evil'.

I am a fan of people who are manipulative to get into power or to get what they want. It doesn't have to be magical in nature, it can be political or social, or a mixture of all three. These people aren't 'evil'. They can be ruthless, cruel and seemingly heartless to get what they want, but they can love, too. They can fear, and mourne, and they have insecurities. 

What I don't really like is a villain or protagonist without a motive for their actions, whether 'good or 'bad'.


----------



## JohnKPatterson

I'm less fond of ambiguity than _complexity_. Anyone can shrug their shoulders when a moral conundrum shows up and it's no longer clear who's right or wrong. The characters who struggle to find answers along with the rest of their goals are more interesting to me. Ambiguity rarely satisfies and leaves the reader wondering what to make of the moral universe of a book (one of George R. R. Martin's few weaknesses).

Complexity does give you an answer, but it's going to have a lot more layers than telling you who was right or wrong, who was good and who was evil. _Avatar: The Last Airbender/Legend of Korra,_ _Harry Potter_ and _The Last Knight_ by Hilari Bell seem more adept at handling the delivery of a moral outlook than what Martin or Abercrombie have to offer (the more I hear about Abercrombie, the less inclined I am to read him).

For that reason, moral complexity might just be a way to keep a variety of the "Dark Lord" in fantasy literature, as long as the battle between good and evil is kept complex and fraught with false appearances. Heck, that's basically the villain in my work-in-progress, a supernatural creature who acts like a cross between _Serenity's_ Operative and Bane from _The Dark Knight Rises,_ a villain with a conscience and a genuine desire to benefit mankind.

Long story short, I find moral ambiguity kind of lazy -- in most fantasy literature, that is. Moral complexity is more interesting and truer to life. The characters, with their moral instincts, refuse to leave morality questions alone and try to actually sort them out. Moral complexity shows the author putting effort into untangling the knot.


----------



## Zero Angel

I don't mind a dark god type character, but just an evildoer for evil-doings sake is toeing the line for me.


----------



## It's a Squirrel...Moose?

Dark Lord characters have to be handled with tack and care in order to be realistic and engaging - too often we get a voldamort or *shudders* Joe Abercrombie style characters that can just ruin an entire story with their stupid 'I'm soooooooooooo evil!!!!!!' routines. But at the same time, overly grey characters can in fact become just that - grey or uninteresting.

The importance of the 'dark lord' is that you must make the reader dislike the character but not be bored with it. This is an issue with Game of Thrones - Joffery is an a***, yet unlike Tyrion he has no interesting characteristics whatsoever - he is in my the least interesting character in the entire series simply because he is just so damn annoying. Whereas take for example the Tawny Man by Robin Hobb - which has a villian that is not only worthy of hatred, but also one that is engaging and interesting to read about. A villian has to be a joy to read, not something that I am half tempted to skip.


----------



## Steerpike

It's a Squirrel...Moose? said:


> Dark Lord characters have to be handled with tack and care in order to be realistic and engaging - too often we get a voldamort or *shudders* Joe Abercrombie style characters that can just ruin an entire story with their stupid 'I'm soooooooooooo evil!!!!!!' routines.



Not seeing that in Abercrombie, myself. Who are you thinking of?


----------



## It's a Squirrel...Moose?

The entire cast? The last book of the blade itself was one cliche ridden horror - just because you reverse the cliche doesn't mean it isn't there.

The only character I liked was the barbarian (can't think of his name right now) - but only because his Berserker side was well handled.


----------



## Steerpike

It's a Squirrel...Moose? said:


> The entire cast? The last book of the blade itself was one cliche ridden horror - just because you reverse the cliche doesn't mean it isn't there.



I don't agree. But putting that aside, it doesn't answer the question of who is doing the Voldemore-like "I'm so evil" routine in Abercrombie's books. It certainly can't be the whole cast. I'm curious who it is, and I may well have forgotten some aspect of it that goes down that path. The barbarian is Logen. I like him and Ferro both well enough. I liked Best Served Cold better, on the whole, however.


----------



## Kit

It's a Squirrel...Moose? said:


> The importance of the 'dark lord' is that you must make the reader dislike the character but not be bored with it. This is an issue with Game of Thrones - Joffery is an a***, yet unlike Tyrion he has no interesting characteristics whatsoever - he is in my the least interesting character in the entire series simply because he is just so damn annoying..



Joffrey is interesting to me because he is unpredictable. I mean, you can predict that he will be selfish and bad... but he was kind of a tornado of chaos. Just when I thought he couldn't shock me any more, he did it again.


----------



## Steerpike

Anyone else read Abercrombie. I was thinking about this more when I got home. The characters I remember from the trilogy are the King, the Captain and his sister, Glokta, Logen, Ferro, and Bayaz. I don't see any of them fitting the Voldemortian "wuaahaha I'm evil" template. But it has been a while since I read them, and on top of that it is always interesting to me how different readers see things differently. What say you?


----------



## ThinkerX

> Anyone else read Abercrombie. I was thinking about this more when I got home. The characters I remember from the trilogy are the King, the Captain and his sister, Glokta, Logen, Ferro, and Bayaz. I don't see any of them fitting the Voldemortian "wuaahaha I'm evil" template. But it has been a while since I read them, and on top of that it is always interesting to me how different readers see things differently. What say you?



Yes, I read the series.  None of the characters struck me as being 'positive'.  Bayaz - the wizard - he was looking pretty close to being an actual 'Dark Lord' by the end, when it became clear he'd been meddling in the kingdom for a long while under different guises, to keep things 'brutal'.  Glokta, the inquisitor, came across as being nasty simply because he could a fair chunk of the time.  He never really redeemed himself, though there were a few times when he almost did.  His superior and the royals, from what I remember seemed downright cowardly. The barbarian Logen...he tried to be positive, but I kept getting the impression he was ultimately doomed big time.

With the possible exception of Bayaz, I wouldn't call any of the characters 'Dark Lords', but there wasn't much likable about them either.


----------



## Steerpike

ThinkerX said:


> With the possible exception of Bayaz, I wouldn't call any of the characters 'Dark Lords', but there wasn't much likable about them either.



I liked some of them fine as characters, though not as people. But even Bayaz didn't fit the dark lord mold, in my view. He wasn't like a Thundercats Mum-Ra villain or anything. He had reasons for his actions, as misguided, arrogant, and self-serving as they were. I don't see a Dark Lord character in any of Abercrombie's books. Best Served Cold certainly didn't have one, and that one was better than the First Law, in my view.


----------



## ThinkerX

> I liked some of them fine as characters, though not as people. But even Bayaz didn't fit the dark lord mold, in my view. He wasn't like a Thundercats Mum-Ra villain or anything. He had reasons for his actions, as misguided, arrogant, and self-serving as they were.



All traits you'd expect to find in a 'Dark Lord', though, including the reasons for his actions. And he'd been meddling to great ill effect in the affairs of that kingdom for a long, long time.  It wasn't until towards the end of Book 3 (whichever one that was), when I saw Bayaz's collective actions throughout history that I decided he was pretty much evil.


----------



## Steerpike

That's not the "ooooh I'm so evil! " characterization I was trying to though. Even if you see Bayaz as a dark lord he doesn't fit that caricature.


----------



## It's a Squirrel...Moose?

Maybe I was going a bit-over-the-top when i said the whole cast, but I was mainly thinking of Bayaz. Bayaz, if you dealt with him from the opposing viewpoint - would b a cliche ridden villian - in fact the whole of the third book - after the very, very strong first and second book you can't help but think 'damn... is that it!?'

Whilst the whole good overcoming evil is a bit tired; I feel that Abercrombie demonstrates why it's so effective as a creative medium - the blade itself didn't feel me with any satisfaction... I was actually hoping that Bayaz would get stabbed or murdered or written out of the book so I wouldn't have to put up with him.

And that's not even talking about the whole 'lets go on a quest, oh wait... it's in my house' plotline.


----------



## Steerpike

I thought the third book could have been a lot stronger in terms of what Abercrombie did with the characters. All of them, really. I got the feeling he was determined to wrap things up in a trilogy when what he'd set up in the first two books was a bit much to close out in the third.  I still liked the trilogy overall, but as I said I thought Best Served Cold was better. Maybe it reflected greater writing experience. One consistent thing its that there was still no one you could like as a person.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Kind of off-topic, but I liked several of the characters in the First Law, if only for part of the time.  I loved Logen for the first two books and Luthar for the second half of the series.  I really liked Collem for most of the series, although he certainly has his down swings.  Ferro and Bayaz I hated.  Quai seemed like a pretty good guy, though.  Oh, and Dogman, Threetrees, and Tul Duru were always great.  Back on topic, I don't think there is a "dark lord" there.  To me, Bayaz is more like Varys than Voldemort/Sauron.


----------

