site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2580 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 25, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's not really a lack of foreshadowing here. I think its pretty well foreshadowed. It's the character trope that is being subverted. It just becomes a lot more clear after you understand the weird inconsistencies that you saw but were missing understanding for. One could argue, that Abercrombie is not a good enough writer if the big twist is not deducible prior without knowledge of the ending, which is fair, and might be true. But I do think the idea that its a "series of completely unforeshadowed unlikely coincidences" is wrong.

Spoiler: Bayaz is deliberately manipulating Jezal into the throne because he's spineless coward and the son of a whore Bayaz bought. He knows he can control him. Bayaz is probably at fault for 90% of bad things that have happened in this world. He's evil Gandalf/evil Dumbledore. There are a bunch of clues from the other magi about this. Khalul is pretty much correct

Spoilers

No, I get all that argument and storyline, I just don't really buy it! And that can also be my perception, the series is very reliant on the use of tropes to engage in storytelling. The reader is very much meant to come in with a pre-existing understanding of like 95% of the stuff in the story, so that Abercrombie doesn't have to waste time explaining it to us. This isn't inherently bad, but the thin characterization of Jezal leaves him open to reader interpretation, and I just don't really buy him as the spineless coward that can be manipulated at will, or buy "idiot king who is manipulated at will" as a real archetype. Jezal starts as a lazy, indolent young officer, like Nikolai Rostov in Tolstoy. He grows through his determination to compete in the Contest following his encounter with Glokta ("I'm going to prove everyone wrong by working super hard"), and again from his wounds during his adventures with Logan and Bayaz (becoming less arrogant and abrasive to his lessers, killing two men in combat, losing his looks). Then any kind of growth is just sort of erased, we don't hear about any of it again, Jezal is right back to being lazy and drunk and indolent. He's back to being the young officer who doesn't want to train for the contest. Which is fine, that's what Abercrombie is going for; but I find it boring. If prior events will have no impact on later events, then what am I reading exactly? That's not a story, it's just a series of what Joe Abercrombie thinks are cool fantasy set pieces. No one is going to grow or change, everything that happens later could have happened without what happens earlier. If you cut out the entire middle bit about the quest, and just have Bayaz install Jezal after the contest win, and Logan wander back north, nothing really changes.

And I'll again note that I gave up late in the third book, and might not have given up at all if it weren't for my current mood (newborn baby) so my criticism is limited, the book wasn't bad, just not perfect.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats