I have to say that I don't much like cyclical stories either - or rather, I don't like it when they are a perfect circle rather than a spiral, if you see what I mean: I can accept "things are much the same, only a little better" or "things are much the same, only a little worse", but if you tell me "things are basically exactly the same and matters haven't really progressed or regressed at all" you've wasted my damn time.

The worst example I can think of this in SF/fantasy is Dhalgren by Samuel Delaney, which granted inspired Bowie's Diamond Dogs but is in itself an entirely pointless novel. It's set in this post-apocalyptic city where people live shallow, pointless lives because there's nothing left to do or achieve, and it does a remarkable job of evoking the crushing boredom of such a society. Which, of course, makes it a complete chore to read.

Hmmm...the problem is I'm genuinely not sure whether I'm being unfair to it. I mean it all comes together in quite a satisfying way and the fact that everything gets re-established pretty much the way it was before does make sense in the context of the book, and it has a suitably cynical conclusion to a cynical trilogy. But ... feh ... it just doesn't *feel* massively satisfying.

Thank you for reading epic post of epic :) I'm grateful!

I'd agree that the book's conclusion doesn't really satisfy and I at least partially share your ambivalence. I sought of feel that I am a reluctant participant in Abercrombie's experiment in writing- one can sse what he's done, and why he's done it, but one's method of appreciating of the piece becomes that of detached analysis rather than aesthetic enjoyment. One closes the book and thinks 'Hmmm...interesting choice.' rather than just basking in the contented glow of a story completed.
Or maybe that's just me.

In any case I think I'd still recommend the series myself; it was an enjoyable read and the characterisation is different enough from generic fantasy fare to feel fresh, particularly if one blitzes through the series in one go.

Yes, I think you're absolutely right, it's possible to take a sort of detached intellectual satisfaction in the conclusion but it doesn't exactly feel like you've had a pleasurable experience. I think for this very reason I'd feel hesitant about recommending; Dan, I'm sure, would lose all patience with it.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of Jezel?

I minded what happened to Jezel a lot less than you. Yes he got shit all over by Bayaz, but that scene for me was less 'Jezel can suck it' and more 'what would happen if Gandalf was a total prick'.

I don't mind that Jezel is a coward (understandably so in the face of a magical compulsion, and someone who can turn him into bloody chunks with a thought). It was enough for me that he had become someone who wanted to be a good man even if he lacked the courage to follow through; it would have been out of tone with the rest of the series for him to be heroic. Besides that I quite liked the idea of him and Glokta, quietly scheming behind Bayaz's back to do good deeds. A conspiracy of fluffiness.