R. Scott Bakker, The Prince of Nothing trilogy.
Perhaps the Dunyain, the man who's defeated his unconscious, a guy who at least pretends to be some kind of strange half jesus-like+warrior, iow, a "warrior-prophet", perhaps it's just too ambitious. And simply impossible to be convincing.

It's one thing for him to be a great fighter and for him to be able to read others such that within a few minutes he knows people far better than they know themselves. It's another for him to give convincing speeches to large crowds. The latter is a complete fail and Bakker unfortunately had Kellhus doing that quite often in books two and three. It went beyond unconvincing and into tiresome.

It's all well and good to try to do things a bit differently and to not have clear good/bad guys. I guess. But you better do something pretty impressive to make up for what amounts to a lack. There needs to be a concept of morality within such a tale as this. Yet one is left reading and just not knowing if Kellhus is a bad guy or good guy. I guess it begins to dawn that, no, he's not. (Which says what concerning defeating the unconscious?)Yet in the early going then, who is a good guy?

Drusus I suppose. But Drusus isn't much to latch onto. In terms of the hero with the ace up his sleeve Kellhus completely and utterly trumps Drusus.

It seems like there aren't enough likable characters in this trilogy. There is Drusus. There is the Scylvendi. And I'm afraid that covers major characters. Perhaps I'm supposed to forgive Esme for being manipulated by the master of manipulation. But I never really thought much of her in the first place. Reminds me a bit much of too many women I've known that really weren't likable....

Furthermore the Kianene are completely glossed over. Endless warring, etc all against some enemy that's never defined. The Consult being vague and mysterious is a good thing. But the Kianene at least should have been explained.

Finally one expects some closure with book three and doesn't ever remotely get that. So I guess years later he's writing more but I don't think, so very sorry to say I'll be reading. Neuropath and the Dunyain sound like nice things to write about, (defeating hte unconscious, etc) but actually he's shown far, far less insight into them then I did in my previous hellblog.

Book one of the Prince of Nothing by R. Scott Bakker
I find it difficult to break it down. Either because it's on a higher level or because breaking it down gets in the way of the enjoyment and it's highly enjoyable. Not quite as enjoyable as Hobb's Farseer Trilogy but nothing else is as good.

There is some injustice but not put out there very bluntly. Not dwelled upon. Injustice is simply a fact of life from Bakker's POV.

There is an unknown related to magic. Definitely not overexplained. Done just right.

The main "hero" has a hidden ace that instead of being related to magic concerns his having defeated his unconscious. Which is pretty cerebral as is the book in general for fantasy fiction. Considering though what an important idea conquering the unconscious has been to me the last few years, it's almost notable how little it matters with regards to enjoying/not enjoying this book.

This is the most cerebral fantasy fiction I've ever read. And the story has held me pretty well. I suppose not quite as well as George Martin or Robin Hobb. Occasionally he stops the action too much in order to describe a setting. Occasionally he goes off to characters that don't appear to be of any importance or much interest. He has a bad habit of having characters asks themselves a lot of questions which I don't care for. Strays a bit toward the boring stuff of reality.

The political intrigue reminds me of Dune and gets somewhat tiresome and the setting is generic middle ages. Still excellent though. Probably will read much more, maybe everything by Bakker, whom has so little popularity he's going to have to go get another job he says.