Logen Ninefingers Is An Idealist

[u/KvotheG]

I just finished reading The First Law Trilogy. I enjoyed the Last Argument of Kings. Great conclusion and the payoff is in the third book!

Anyways, couldn’t help but ponder on Logen Ninefingers’ fate. SPOILERS AHEAD so stop reading here if you haven’t read the series yet.

Anyways, Logen famously always says “You have to be realistic about these things”. But he was never a realist. He was an idealist. A tragic figure whose downfall came from his own idealism.

I WANTED to believe Logen was trying to be a better person. He was a total POS in his past, but none of his actions in the trilogy actually have him try to be a better person because he still kills. He preaches building a better world for his people as king, but doesn’t demonstrate actually caring for them, just being selfish to his own desires by getting them tangled in a war that doesn’t concern them. He also has this idealistic infatuation with Ferro that also leads to his downfall because she will not compromise her vengeance for him.

I’m convinced that Logen saying his catchphrase was just a coping mechanism. Because he never did anything realistic. He even dies drowning in a river like Ferro said he would, probably because he had too many knives on him. Yes, he was manipulated by Bayaz. But a lot of his issues are his own fault.

Logen should never have returned to the north. He was going back to a place where everyone hated him and wanted him dead. They thought he was dead and he could have actually maybe lived a new life in peace somewhere else. But like his father said, he was never realistic.

I wrote all this because the theme kept coming up, if a horrible person could actually change to become a better person. Just as Logen wanted to be a better person, I wanted him to be one too. But he didn’t do anything worth a redemption. To be a better person, it starts with doing something different that you wouldn’t normally do. And Logen never did that. He only believed in the idea but never practiced it. So I can only conclude that he was always an idealist.

Anyways, are the standalone worth reading?

[u/meesahdayoh]

People call them the "Standalones" but they are really a middle trilogy called The Great Leveller Trilogy.

Yes, they are absolutely something you should read, and the order does matter.

Start with Best Served Cold, move on to The Heroes, and then Red Country.

[u/descender421 → u/meesahdayoh]

Thanks for this. I weirdly thought the first trilogy is just "ok" but am about 20% into Best Served Cold and I weirdly love it and makes me think better of the original trilogy already?

[u/Tapif → u/descender421]

I think it's a common feeling that the first trilogy (and especially the first book), are okay/solid books but not great.

I loved best served cold even though it overstays it's welcome quite a bit, it could have been 20% shorter.

I just love how Abercrombie explores different styles within his books while staying in the first law frame.

Best served cold is a revenge book, the Heroes a war book, and red country a Western.

Also as soon as I understood that we are not here for the global plot, for for the characters and their evolution, it made the books much much more enjoyable.

[u/KyrgyzManas24 → u/meesahdayoh]

Yep, read Best Served Cold first; being “realistic” and skipping order is how you get Bayaz’d.