Hmmm. I dunno about this one.
I mean, it’s as well-written as anything else Abercrombie has done. It moves well, the plotting’s good. But as it is the finale of a second trilogy so closely tied to the first, it leads me to have to consider everything in bulk.
The problem I have with the Age of Madness trilogy was realized about halfway through this one: I don’t care about most of these characters. Oreo and Savine are fun, I guess. Vick is somewhat interesting. But everyone in the north absolutely bored me, which is sad because the northerners were the strength of the First Law trilogy. And so I’m waiting for the story to play out to satisfy my curiosity about how it ended…
And it’s a fine? ending?
It’s definitely in line with Abercrombie’s themes: power is cyclical and hard to maintain, change is necessary at times but difficult to accomplish, true revolution requires skill and luck.
It reminds me of my feelings towards The Last Jedi: I like how it ended, I didn’t always like how it got there.
Though I will add as someone who thinks there needs to be more French influence in fantasy: taking large parts of the Great Change from the French Revolution was clever and different in a refreshing way. Abercrombie is doing something outside the bounds of the traditional medieval fantasy and through six books, I think he subverts it well.
Therefore, this trilogy may hold up better on a reread. In the abstract, I liked the First Law one better but appreciate the overall message the six books present even if the last three were hit-or-miss.