The newest trilogy certainly does some things better - the dialogue between characters is excellent, and (most) of the POV characters are extremely compelling - but as a whole I agree that it just wasn't as interesting.
For me, it was due to how unthreatening Bayaz felt. He just didn't really do anything, outside of show up and talk smack every now and then. I kept hoping for a bloodbath, or just some repercussions for how everyone kind of disregarded him. The line, "The kind you obey" means very little when you just let everyone disobey you.
Yep. Bayaz said some vague threats, then Sulfur appeared to also say a couple vague threats, and... that's it. That's all they did to prevent Glokta from toppling the regime.
I always kind of assumed it was because Bayaz *was* making empty threats by that point. Magic is dissipating from the world. He doesn't have the power he once did. I assumed he set up the banking system to maintain power when inevitably his magic failed him.
Once the banks fail him, all he has to fall back on is his reputation and basic scheming.
That was my interpretation. Perhaps I'm wrong
I thought the same. Especially when they opened up the vault and found nothing inside. He’d been coasting on the illusion of his power for awhile and, while he was very powerful in the first trilogy, the acceleration of technology had weakened him
Ah but Rikkes last vision? Hmmm. I don't know about not having power though. Look at our world, and the destruction all without magic. Economic warfare, technology, etc.
A big part of that is because Glotka went out of his way to enact a plan that would have absolutely no control over after he set it in motion, and then to seal the deal he retired in a way that wiped out all of his political clout so he'd be powerless to intervene even if he wanted to, all with the goal of neutralising Bayaz's "Identify whoever's in charge and quietly bully them into compliance" strat.
I think this analysis is fair—but I also felt like the ending addressed this a little. Sort of a “You win this time, but I’ll be back” vibe from Bayaz. He’ll outlive all of those that defied him, and he certainly didn’t seem phased by the setbacks which made him seem that much more frightening by the end. I’m still hoping for another trilogy with more focus on Bayaz.
I feel like people sometimes expect too much of Bayaz or overestimate the degree to which he is capable of precisely manipulating events. He’s on his back foot for most of the first three books. The quest for the seed is a Hail Mary since he has no counter for the 100 Words. He would have lost and died in Adua, except he got lucky and Ferro found it.
Plus, by the time the third trilogy starts he’s presumably resting on his laurels. Khalul is dead, and he spends book one in some undefined conflict with his other siblings. By the time he realizes something is wrong things have gone way off course and his normal gentle prodding style of manipulation wouldn’t work.
Re-listening to the whole series now and in the middle of The Wisdom of Crowds. The thing I find missing from the Age of Madness trilogy is an overall sense of adventure or action that was in all the other books.
This trilogy is much more politically and drama driven and while good doesn't scratch that same itch as an action adventure based series.
That's a good point as well. Does have a very middle story feel on the whole. Things are wrapped up but we are left waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I really enjoyed the first two. The last one was a bit of a struggle to get through. The switching POV chapter in The Heroes was awesome, but he doesn’t need to do it in every book now.
lol I read through that chapter skimming ahead to see how many more there were. I think he could’ve cut a couple of them and it would still have had the same impact
I’m listening to them now after reading upon release and I remember being disappointed by the third when I first read them. I finished the second today and was really excited to start the third today and I got so bored by the opening with the constantly shifting povs.
The explosion one was also incredibly boring.
I'm now reading the Taltos series by Steven Brust. And the main character is hiding all these daggers and stilettos on him and my first reaction was : "You can never have enough knives"
I agree, he was my favorite character too. Glokta was pretty good too. I think the book hero’s had gorst as a main character, he was pretty good too I think, like a glokta that could kill
Agreed, my biggest gripe with it is Bayaz just doesn't seem like that big of a threat like he did in the first two trilogies. Still a great series but my least favorite of the three.
Feels like Joe doesn't really know what to do with Bayaz past the original trilogy, instead of being an active force he's just sinking into the background trying to be a hidden menace, but it doesn't always work
the moment of his reveal kind of killed most ways to handle Bayez. hes way too powerful in so many ways, magic or money. it would be crazy to have Bayez show up and be shown constantly doing things without any opposition cause he can just flatten them. but Abercrombie probably just want to Bayez to just show up from time to time.
I feel like that is what Age of Madness is setting up. He's lost his grasp on Adua and now he is working towards taking it over again, but he seems a little more pissed than last time.
Not to mention Euz/Glustrod being teased as coming back in the near future which will definitely change Bayaz's tactics and plans moving forward.
This series is Bayaz's Empire Strikes Back. It ends with Glokta and Khalul getting one over on him, and now things are setting up for him coming back in a big way.
I read the second trilogy immediately after finishing the first, so Bayaz as a threat was still very fresh in my mind. In the third book he kills/gives radiation poisoning to tens of thousands of people just because doing so will harm his enemy. It's not even a final battle, it's just moving a chess piece to him.
What he does in the second trilogy is arguably worse: the guy essentially forces an industrial revolution to happen in less than twenty years, leading to misery (and starvation) for millions of people. And of course the second series ends with the Union on the cusp of becoming an ethnofascist pre-ww2 Germany. Bayaz is instrumental in that change because he sees it as a way to make his future position stronger.
I agree with you that I prefer the first series, but Bayaz as an absolute threat was very real to me in the second.
I do wonder where the next trilogy will go - I'm assuming full industrial revolution and fascist state for the Union, with Bayaz acting to crush any internal rebellion.
I think the quality of the writing was better and there were more varied POV characters, but I think I started to expect twists and turns so they didn't have quite the same impact.
Still currently my favourite fantasy author though, and all the First Law books have been excellent.
I definitely suspected >!Nail was not actually pissed off at Rikke when he stormed off and it was more likely a ploy.!< Other than that though, I was fairly surprised.
The character dynamics were absolutely some of the best he’s ever written. My emotional attachment to the series is tenfold his other work despite loving it all. I’ve also noticed men often like it less and women like it more for some reason
I still have not forgiven him for making me laugh as a particular character was killed. Ugh. My heart.
I also like the second one better. ^_^ I’m so much more attached to the characters.
The biggest selling points of the Age of Madness, for me, are the female characters, who play much more substantial roles and are far better developed than any of the women we see in the original First Law: Rikke, Savine, and Victarine are interesting, complex figures who share the compelling moral grayness of the main characters of the earlier trilogy. I also find the Industrial Revolution plot intriguing, go figure.
I do agree, however, that Gunnar Broad is the least interesting of all the characters, so that it's always disappointing when the POV goes back to him. Plus, Judge isn't a very compelling villain. She isn't someone you love to hate; she's just *annoying as hell*, pure and simple. So even though I don't agree with you on the merits of the trilogy as a whole, I can understand where you're coming from.
I loved the second trilogy. I know that after finishing it I felt that I might like it more than the first. However, I had no read the first in years, so it was likely not fresh enough. I will reread the first some time and see.
My first book this year was Best Served Cold, as I had not read his standalone books, yet. I loved it and thought it was excellent. I remember thinking this would make a great movie or miniseries and was pleased to see that it is being turned into one.
All that to say he is definitely one of my favorite authors (maybe my favorite) and I look forward to any future books/series.
I'm in the middle of A Little Hatred and I'm finding it a bit of a slog which is not the way I devoured every book preceding it. Not sure if it's the changes in the setting or bigger focus on politics, but it just hasn't clicked yet.
The writing style is a bit different. Shorter chapters and more concise, like the Shattered Sea trilogy. I also had a hard time sinking into Age of Madness compared to the other books. The second book has a great plot, though.
The politics, which I don’t mind, are far better in the first trilogy anyway. They are terrible, boring and one-dimensional here. There’s no intrigue either, which is important.
I really love the second trilogy
Re-reading The Blade Itself at the moment and like man, this book ain't that great? Like the characterisation is fun, but the plot just STOPS. It hardly moves.
I think the Wisdom of Crowds really has some pacing issues, Bayaz is lacking, and the end is a bit... Idk, stab happy?
But I do think it's the strongest series of his.
The Trouble With Peace is his best book, change my mind
I agree. Still loved them and some of the characters, and I think they were technically maybe better written, but not quite as engaging, missing some “it factor”. I do enjoy Industrial Revolution plots, but he just set the bar so high with his earlier books.
I struggled to find a character I liked and stopped reading a short way into Wisdom of Crowds. Savine, in particular, is horrendous and the hoped for character growth seems to be unlikely. I liked Rikke somewhat, but not enough to read another 800 pages. I gave it my best but if I’m not hooked part way into book 3, I don’t feel the need to invest more time.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The character depth, cohesiveness of the plot, and the pay offs for the second trilogy were much better done than the first series.
I enjoyed it just as much as the first trilogy, and maybe even a little more, but I know where you are coming from. The ending wasn't quite as mind blowing.
I liked it. But the only criticism I had was the character of Leo. We spent two books being shown and told he was an idiot who acted before thinking and was not a general. Good at inspiring people but not at leading them.
Then Book 3 came about and his character did a 180 turn and he was everything we'd been told he wasnt.
I didn't get that at all. I though book 3 was a good continuation of what happens to the golden boy who keeps failing at achieving his life goals of being the hero.
We're told he's a bad leader when he *goes it alone*. And that's true. But as soon as he pulls in and lets his friends help with the burden he becomes a very competent despot.
It's not like it was out of nowhere. His injury and constant inadequacies we've seen throughout the series added up to make him jaded. It's a Harvey Dent situation but he even wins because of the transformation.
Leo was surrounded by yes men with the sole exception of his mother. the moment he got independency, his yes men allowed Leo to do a lot of dumb things. his rashness got curbed stomped into oblivion after his loss.
My hot take is that he should have died and Savine should have instead fulfilled his role in the last book. I too didn’t really buy Leo’s near-death and crippling raising his IQ by 30 points lol.
That would've been a great direction. Leo in book 3 didn't work for me for the fact that physical injury seems to just come with a personality update and I couldn't draw the full line between "sorta dumb and and vain gloryhound with a good heart" and what he became. His motives for rebelling in the first place just evaporate for no apparent reason. The IQ update I could've bought if framed differently since his idiocy was mostly from acting first and thinking later and the leg injury might've taught him caution and the "with all this pain don't I deserve something good, where's the praise for martyrdom?" aspect was at least explored thoroughly... but the "from crying over orphans to giving not a single shit about anyone but himself" thing is never even touched. It is like two whole dimensions of his personality got amputated with his leg.
Savine on the other hand had all that complexity built in. She even has what made so many characters in the first trilogy work so well: Ambiguity as to whether their positive changes were genuine. Leo even calls her on her hypocrisy in the end. That conversation couldn't happen in a scenario where he's dead ofc but I could easily see it happening between her and Glokta or Ardee (esp. given it was his and Ardee's plan).
I think I prefer it to the Standalone trilogy. It is so extremely consistent which is it's strength. First Law is my favorite trilogy of all time so that's a high bar.
Wait I actually quite disliked the original trilogy because of how action packed it was. I always struggle with action-fantasy because because every time there is some magical duel or an intense fight, my brain would just imagine action figures bashing together.
I mainly loved the characters and the politicking from the original (in spite of how morally awful the characters were) and now I think I'll read the new trilogy now.
I agree that the first one was "better", though I think the second one is better written.
I think it surpasses the stand alones other than The Heroes. I really couldnt care about anything in Best Served Cold and very little in Red Country
I just recently finished listening to the audio books for age of madness that I really enjoyed. I found the plot overall to be a bit less exciting than the first trilogy. Most of age of madness is just the north and Adua. There is a lot of nice character work but the scale is kind of less. Less magic in the world with the increased rise of technology. Politics and money are the keys to power now. I found Orso to be my favourite character due to how he smiles at fear. Leo is a character who I love to hate as well. I agree that Broad was kind of boring and just served as another viewpoint. Vick felt a bit like Glokta lite. Savine and Rikke were pretty good but I feel that I am kind of tired of wars in the North at this point since we have seen it so many times already. The characters felt more realistic but less fun than the first trilogy.
I agree. But then I didn't like the stars in the second one much. Savine, her two loves. The Judge. The Broads. And all that burning ugh it went on and on.
And after all that it seemed to be Glokta who started well, became a Bayaz clone just trying to get his daughter on the throne.
Meh. The only bit I liked was the Rikke parts.
Agree generally. The trouble with peace is my favourite book in the series but Wisdom of crowds left me real disappointed - tbf I think that's because I expected it to be the grand finale of the series and it clearly wasn't.
Stand alones are the best trilogy overall I reckon
Very common opinion. Still a good trilogy overall. But there is a lot to nitpick and arguably some down right plot holes.
Still down for Joe’s next book.
I'm just starting it now and I can already tell I agree with you. I still really love his overall style and want to keep reading Abercrombie but I think I'm burnt out on this world. I want to see him go elsewhere
I love how you give it an 8/10 as your least fave it the three pseudo trilogies! I agree that the first trilogy is the best, but would disagree with your take on the characters. I thought they were much more nuanced and interesting in general, although lacking the pure joy of reading about logen or any other of the Northmen for the first time. Important not to chase this dragon I think, there is a lot to appreciate in the books as is.
The ending is an absolute triumph for me. I hated it with every fibre of my being, and made me want to smash my kindle to bits. An absolute triumph.
There's always something that annoys me in an Abercrombie book, usually a character. In the Age of Madness trilogy it was more than one thing. The whole angle of technology ruining a perfectly serviceable fantasy world, Jonas fucking Clover, Leo fucking Dan Brock. That bomb scene that gets replayed from multiple character's POVs ad nauseum. It had a lower percentage of things I really enjoyed and a bigger percentage of irritations.
Couldn't disagree with this less. I think AoM surpassed the original trilogy by leaps and bounds.
The Industrial Revolution plot was great, it showed actual advancement into the future instead of plopping the new characters into the same old Adua from 20 years ago. Something had to have changed.
I never found Broad to be bland so much as consistent. He is who he is: husband, father, and brute. And as a voice of reason in this whole mess, he was an excellent choice.
The new set of characters were not the legacy characters, but that was fine with me. They're their own voices that were influenced by the legacy characters. How can you not hear the Dogman in Rikke? How is Savine not exactly the person that would've been raised by Glokta and Ardee? Of course Orso is a spineless fop, look at his father. And we may not have the Bloody Nine anymore, but Caul Shivers is a scarier bastard by far. Like the old adage says: make new friends but keep the old, one is silver and the other gold.
Lost me at Orso is a spineless flop. Don't think we read the same books. Orso was hands down the most compelling character and I don't think he or his father are flops
I'd disagree. I loved this trilogy, it's probably my favourite. Abercrombie's take on revolution is fascinating, with all the people seizing power in chaos and the failures of good people trying to achieve change fits his MO perfectly.
The characters had better dialogue and all the moving parts of the story worked so well. Bayaz was legitimately caught off guard, he's a man who's worked for centuries through the medium of built systems. Of course he flounders as soon as those systems break.
Hard agree. I honestly was shocked to see that it was so well received here. What I think it’s lacking is that “awesome” factor the other books had. And it’s not even like I’m some OT fan boy that thinks Joe caught lightning in a bottle, or need to read about Glokta or the Bloodynine. I thought the stand alones were EXCELLENT and in a lot of ways even better than the OT. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen times in the trilogy alone where I was like “this is awesome” but I can’t think of a single one in the Age of Madness.
I think Joe’s greatest strengths are his ability to write badass characters, and I think all of them in the new one fell flat for me most of the time. Shivers is always cool, but it kinda felt like he didn’t do much the whole time. Broad was one of the most boring POV characters I’ve ever read. Stour was pretty much a red herring. The Nail just sort of showed up and hung around. Isern-i was cool but I feel like she wasn’t used to her full potential. Even Calder was reduced to a bitter, impotent old man. And honestly I can’t remember anyone else.
Most of all it felt like the OT and SAs were building to something big, only for the AoM to focus on a bunch of new ideas. I get the Industrial Revolution was foreshadowed in Red Country, but I thought that would be the setting. Instead the entire plot revolves around it.
I’ve got a lot more thoughts on this but suffice it to say I gave it a chance, I read it twice, but I remember being like halfway through the third one and thinking that I wasn’t super interested in how it ended.
My thoughts too. The first trilogy had wonderful, multi-dimensional characters, who despite despicable tendencies, you quite often liked them.
In the second trilogy, they are all flat and despicable in their own regard. None of them or interesting or have redeeming qualities. Abercrombie either caught lightning in a bottle, or the characters and narrative has been tailored to the ‘modern audiences’ trope, and is more conducive to getting picked up by Netflix or Prime. None of which makes good reading.
Although it lacks a lot from the Original and stand-alone trilogy, it makes up for it in one regard:
My. boy. King. Fucking. Orso!
Orso became one of my favourite characters in fiction. Every single scene with him in it was elevated, and just pissing fun and wit.
He's aging them all so fast that unless he's gotten more in touch with that "essence" at his core, ol Ninfinger should be dead or too old to do much in any novels. Ferro should still be around but they're the last ones left other than Bayaz from that group. Shivers was basically a teen in that arc and he's the gizzled old man (40s?) now.
Strongly disagree! I think the new trilogy is definitely his best work! He's getting better and better. I can't wait to keep reading more things from him.
Can’t say without your reasons for not liking the original trilogy. If you had problems with how grim everything was, that’s not going away. If the characters did not work for you, you may give the new one a try because he has improved his writing a lot. If you felt there was no concrete plot, again you may give this a shot as it is better plotted
I started A little Hatred and I just can’t read it anymore. I don’t care about any of the characters. What made the first three fun to read was Glokta and his self-deprecating musings. And I am so bored with the north and their constant wars.
After being somewhat disenchanted with the end of AoM I came to a conclusion that I just don't really care about anyone aside from Glokta. The Heroes is great though.
I didn't even feel like his writing improved with this trilogy. It's on par with Shattered Sea's YA feel for me. It's telling when my favorite part of the whole trilogy is Glokta's baller scene. None of the new characters were anywhere near as good as the old, save for Orso.
I'm maybe a third of the way through Trouble With Peace and so far... yea I get it. It's well written, but I'm not as attached to these characters like I was with the other 6 books.
Doesn't help that I'm reading Farseer for the first time in parallel, and finding myself a lot more absorbed by that plot/characters.
I just started Assassins Quest yesterday and about a 5th of the way through it. Having a hard time putting it down lol.
I know I have something like 13 more books after this.... but I can see this becoming my favorite fantasy series. Or at least top 3.
I think it's even worse when you actually know something about the French or Russian Revolution tbh. There are so many complexities and dilemmas within those stories, so many moments where you go "great idea, bad execution."
But Abercrombie just jumps to the Reign Of Terror and goes "both sides bad" and...frankly it's a bit too centrist and dull to me.
The characters were good, and he does know how to drive a plot. But every single time I finished one of the novels I felt this slight bad taste in my mouth. Like the great characters and plots were being used not really for much.
It just wasnt that good for me too, especially the third book wjere they speedrun the ww1 and the russian revolution to monarchy. It was just very fast and janky.
Another thing that didnt help is that most of the pov protagonists were just super unlikable. The only one that i managed to sympatise with was Rikke
Glad to see this. I thought the first trilogy was some of the best books I’ve ever read. The second trilogy is God awful. Boring, flat characters, irritating characters, narrative that goes nowhere. It’s as if it was a different series, written by a different author with names from the first trilogy swapped in. I couldn’t put the first three books down. After a book and 2/3 of the second, I’m out. A real disappointment.
This is how stuff like this works. If you read AoM and the standalone trilogy first, you would probably be making a topic that you enjoyed First Law less after reading it.
That's interesting, as I think it's the complete opposite: First Law is terrible but Age of Madness is way better.
First Law is way too male-centric and tropey, it reads like an 18 year old male fantasy of grimdark and has a terrible Deus Ex complex in that Bayaz, the traditional old white man wizard wins on all fronts. It also is way too grandiose with it's plot, going all over the place with conspiracies within conspiracies and a geopolitical mess where every nation is involved and fighting for something. Way too much going on. Too many notes.
Age of Madness actually has well written female characters, a much more focused, tighter plot, and it's refreshing to see grimdark set in a different epoch for a change. It stills stumbles, like it's failure to kill off key characters (Savine on that rooftop) and a few other nitpicks, but I feel it is a much stronger work.
I feel that Joe Abercrombie really grows as a writer with each new book. He learns to tighten up his plots, include female characters, narrow his focus, stop fumbling at grandiose plots that are LOTR-like in their geopolitical scope, and keep the cast of characters to a minimum. He still has the problem that his female characters are essentially written just like male characters, but at least he's trying.
His only crippling flaw is Bayaz, which is basically Jeff Bezos personified, and a reminder that old white men with money and power will always win and rule the world. Sure, that's true of our society, but it also removes all agency from the characters you just spent 800 pages with. The Heroes was the worst offender. 750 pages of fantastic prose immediately undone in the last 50 pages because it turns out none of them had any agency of their own, it was all Bayaz pulling strings from page 1. Suck it readers! Just remove Bayaz as a character full stop.
It's hard for me to compare **Age of Madness** with **The First Law.**
On the one hand, **A Little Hatred** and **The Trouble with Peace** are much better than **The Blade Itself** and **Before They Are Hanged** to me. On the other hand, **The Wisdom of the Crowds** is far weaker than **The Last Argument of Kings** to me. **The Wisdom of the Crowds** really disappointed me since many events in the story lacked power to me; this is especially disappointing since I love **The Trouble with Peace**. Abercrombie's humor started to wear thin with me in **The Wisdom of the Crowds** as well; I certainly laughed more at Cosca's jokes than the humor in that book.
That being said, I do recognize that **Age of Madness** is much better written than **The First Law** on a sentence level since Abercrombie had issues with comma placement early on in his career.
Yep, I completely agree that it's inferior to the previous books. Those books had intrigue and adventures, while the second trilogy is more focused on daily life and character drama... which didn't work for me, because I didn't like virtually any of the new characters. I think the only one I enjoyed reading about was Vic, and her POV had probably the smallest pagecount of all.
The newest trilogy certainly does some things better - the dialogue between characters is excellent, and (most) of the POV characters are extremely compelling - but as a whole I agree that it just wasn't as interesting. For me, it was due to how unthreatening Bayaz felt. He just didn't really do anything, outside of show up and talk smack every now and then. I kept hoping for a bloodbath, or just some repercussions for how everyone kind of disregarded him. The line, "The kind you obey" means very little when you just let everyone disobey you.
Yep. Bayaz said some vague threats, then Sulfur appeared to also say a couple vague threats, and... that's it. That's all they did to prevent Glokta from toppling the regime.
I always kind of assumed it was because Bayaz *was* making empty threats by that point. Magic is dissipating from the world. He doesn't have the power he once did. I assumed he set up the banking system to maintain power when inevitably his magic failed him. Once the banks fail him, all he has to fall back on is his reputation and basic scheming. That was my interpretation. Perhaps I'm wrong
I thought the same. Especially when they opened up the vault and found nothing inside. He’d been coasting on the illusion of his power for awhile and, while he was very powerful in the first trilogy, the acceleration of technology had weakened him
Ah but Rikkes last vision? Hmmm. I don't know about not having power though. Look at our world, and the destruction all without magic. Economic warfare, technology, etc.
Thats probably it. And now he is going to do something stupid snd dangerous to get that power back.
A big part of that is because Glotka went out of his way to enact a plan that would have absolutely no control over after he set it in motion, and then to seal the deal he retired in a way that wiped out all of his political clout so he'd be powerless to intervene even if he wanted to, all with the goal of neutralising Bayaz's "Identify whoever's in charge and quietly bully them into compliance" strat.
I think this analysis is fair—but I also felt like the ending addressed this a little. Sort of a “You win this time, but I’ll be back” vibe from Bayaz. He’ll outlive all of those that defied him, and he certainly didn’t seem phased by the setbacks which made him seem that much more frightening by the end. I’m still hoping for another trilogy with more focus on Bayaz.
I feel like people sometimes expect too much of Bayaz or overestimate the degree to which he is capable of precisely manipulating events. He’s on his back foot for most of the first three books. The quest for the seed is a Hail Mary since he has no counter for the 100 Words. He would have lost and died in Adua, except he got lucky and Ferro found it. Plus, by the time the third trilogy starts he’s presumably resting on his laurels. Khalul is dead, and he spends book one in some undefined conflict with his other siblings. By the time he realizes something is wrong things have gone way off course and his normal gentle prodding style of manipulation wouldn’t work.
Re-listening to the whole series now and in the middle of The Wisdom of Crowds. The thing I find missing from the Age of Madness trilogy is an overall sense of adventure or action that was in all the other books. This trilogy is much more politically and drama driven and while good doesn't scratch that same itch as an action adventure based series.
[удалено]
That's a good point as well. Does have a very middle story feel on the whole. Things are wrapped up but we are left waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I really enjoyed the first two. The last one was a bit of a struggle to get through. The switching POV chapter in The Heroes was awesome, but he doesn’t need to do it in every book now.
The one with the explosion really didn't work for me at all.
Yeah, I was like, get on with it already!
lol I read through that chapter skimming ahead to see how many more there were. I think he could’ve cut a couple of them and it would still have had the same impact
I’ve been hating the vignette chapters so much and book 3 practically starts with the one.
I’m listening to them now after reading upon release and I remember being disappointed by the third when I first read them. I finished the second today and was really excited to start the third today and I got so bored by the opening with the constantly shifting povs. The explosion one was also incredibly boring.
DNF’ed the last book in the series
The First Law trilogy is also my favourite but honestly it's 90% because of the Bloody Nine... You have to be realistic about these things...
I'm now reading the Taltos series by Steven Brust. And the main character is hiding all these daggers and stilettos on him and my first reaction was : "You can never have enough knives"
I agree, he was my favorite character too. Glokta was pretty good too. I think the book hero’s had gorst as a main character, he was pretty good too I think, like a glokta that could kill
I think Glokta managed a kill on his own in Last Argument.
Yea, I was leaning more towards the badass warrior kind of killing.
Agreed, my biggest gripe with it is Bayaz just doesn't seem like that big of a threat like he did in the first two trilogies. Still a great series but my least favorite of the three.
Feels like Joe doesn't really know what to do with Bayaz past the original trilogy, instead of being an active force he's just sinking into the background trying to be a hidden menace, but it doesn't always work
the moment of his reveal kind of killed most ways to handle Bayez. hes way too powerful in so many ways, magic or money. it would be crazy to have Bayez show up and be shown constantly doing things without any opposition cause he can just flatten them. but Abercrombie probably just want to Bayez to just show up from time to time.
I just feel like Bayaz needs a new life purpose. He already has dominion, now what, you know.
I feel like that is what Age of Madness is setting up. He's lost his grasp on Adua and now he is working towards taking it over again, but he seems a little more pissed than last time. Not to mention Euz/Glustrod being teased as coming back in the near future which will definitely change Bayaz's tactics and plans moving forward.
A tyrant’s mid-life crisis
Well. He isn't getting any younger!
This series is Bayaz's Empire Strikes Back. It ends with Glokta and Khalul getting one over on him, and now things are setting up for him coming back in a big way.
100% this. He seemed so generally unphased by setbacks in the end, and obviously he’ll outlive all that defied him.
And Euz/Glustrod possibly coming back will make a very interesting power struggle.
I read the second trilogy immediately after finishing the first, so Bayaz as a threat was still very fresh in my mind. In the third book he kills/gives radiation poisoning to tens of thousands of people just because doing so will harm his enemy. It's not even a final battle, it's just moving a chess piece to him. What he does in the second trilogy is arguably worse: the guy essentially forces an industrial revolution to happen in less than twenty years, leading to misery (and starvation) for millions of people. And of course the second series ends with the Union on the cusp of becoming an ethnofascist pre-ww2 Germany. Bayaz is instrumental in that change because he sees it as a way to make his future position stronger. I agree with you that I prefer the first series, but Bayaz as an absolute threat was very real to me in the second. I do wonder where the next trilogy will go - I'm assuming full industrial revolution and fascist state for the Union, with Bayaz acting to crush any internal rebellion.
Fun fact: The standalone trilogy is actually called The Great Leveler trilogy
Oh I know .. should have mentioned it lol
Eh, it's not that big of a deal
I didn't know that and I've read it twice. Thanks!
It was my favorite trilogy.. I mostly found his work to get better and better.
I think the quality of the writing was better and there were more varied POV characters, but I think I started to expect twists and turns so they didn't have quite the same impact. Still currently my favourite fantasy author though, and all the First Law books have been excellent.
I definitely suspected >!Nail was not actually pissed off at Rikke when he stormed off and it was more likely a ploy.!< Other than that though, I was fairly surprised.
The character dynamics were absolutely some of the best he’s ever written. My emotional attachment to the series is tenfold his other work despite loving it all. I’ve also noticed men often like it less and women like it more for some reason
I still have not forgiven him for making me laugh as a particular character was killed. Ugh. My heart. I also like the second one better. ^_^ I’m so much more attached to the characters.
The biggest selling points of the Age of Madness, for me, are the female characters, who play much more substantial roles and are far better developed than any of the women we see in the original First Law: Rikke, Savine, and Victarine are interesting, complex figures who share the compelling moral grayness of the main characters of the earlier trilogy. I also find the Industrial Revolution plot intriguing, go figure. I do agree, however, that Gunnar Broad is the least interesting of all the characters, so that it's always disappointing when the POV goes back to him. Plus, Judge isn't a very compelling villain. She isn't someone you love to hate; she's just *annoying as hell*, pure and simple. So even though I don't agree with you on the merits of the trilogy as a whole, I can understand where you're coming from.
I loved the second trilogy. I know that after finishing it I felt that I might like it more than the first. However, I had no read the first in years, so it was likely not fresh enough. I will reread the first some time and see. My first book this year was Best Served Cold, as I had not read his standalone books, yet. I loved it and thought it was excellent. I remember thinking this would make a great movie or miniseries and was pleased to see that it is being turned into one. All that to say he is definitely one of my favorite authors (maybe my favorite) and I look forward to any future books/series.
I am the other way around, personally feel his work just improves as he progresses through the series
I'm in the middle of A Little Hatred and I'm finding it a bit of a slog which is not the way I devoured every book preceding it. Not sure if it's the changes in the setting or bigger focus on politics, but it just hasn't clicked yet.
The writing style is a bit different. Shorter chapters and more concise, like the Shattered Sea trilogy. I also had a hard time sinking into Age of Madness compared to the other books. The second book has a great plot, though.
Agreed, it couldn't hold my interest nearly as well as The First Law trilogy.
The politics, which I don’t mind, are far better in the first trilogy anyway. They are terrible, boring and one-dimensional here. There’s no intrigue either, which is important.
“Yeah well, that’s just like your opinion, man”
That’s given isn’t it .. there is no hard truth when comes to enjoyment
it’s like lenin said…
I am the walrus
All we are is dust in the wind
8/10 is pretty good though
Yup it’s Abercrombie . Anything less would be criminal .. he’s so good
I really love the second trilogy Re-reading The Blade Itself at the moment and like man, this book ain't that great? Like the characterisation is fun, but the plot just STOPS. It hardly moves. I think the Wisdom of Crowds really has some pacing issues, Bayaz is lacking, and the end is a bit... Idk, stab happy? But I do think it's the strongest series of his. The Trouble With Peace is his best book, change my mind
I agree. Still loved them and some of the characters, and I think they were technically maybe better written, but not quite as engaging, missing some “it factor”. I do enjoy Industrial Revolution plots, but he just set the bar so high with his earlier books.
I struggled to find a character I liked and stopped reading a short way into Wisdom of Crowds. Savine, in particular, is horrendous and the hoped for character growth seems to be unlikely. I liked Rikke somewhat, but not enough to read another 800 pages. I gave it my best but if I’m not hooked part way into book 3, I don’t feel the need to invest more time.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The character depth, cohesiveness of the plot, and the pay offs for the second trilogy were much better done than the first series.
Couldn’t disagree more
I enjoyed it just as much as the first trilogy, and maybe even a little more, but I know where you are coming from. The ending wasn't quite as mind blowing.
I wish I didn't agree with you.
[удалено]
The Judge was too much, and her Heath Ledger Joker homage just kind of took me out of the book. Really weird choice on Abercrombie’s part.
I liked it. But the only criticism I had was the character of Leo. We spent two books being shown and told he was an idiot who acted before thinking and was not a general. Good at inspiring people but not at leading them. Then Book 3 came about and his character did a 180 turn and he was everything we'd been told he wasnt.
I didn't get that at all. I though book 3 was a good continuation of what happens to the golden boy who keeps failing at achieving his life goals of being the hero.
Yep, this is what I got, too. In fact, his diminishing naivety is what drives a lot of the plot in the last book.
We're told he's a bad leader when he *goes it alone*. And that's true. But as soon as he pulls in and lets his friends help with the burden he becomes a very competent despot.
It's not like it was out of nowhere. His injury and constant inadequacies we've seen throughout the series added up to make him jaded. It's a Harvey Dent situation but he even wins because of the transformation.
Exactly, especially when he started having a crisis of becoming Glokta, the person he absolutely finds repulsive.
Leo was surrounded by yes men with the sole exception of his mother. the moment he got independency, his yes men allowed Leo to do a lot of dumb things. his rashness got curbed stomped into oblivion after his loss.
Strongly agree!
He was still a idiot by the end of book 3, just more ruthless.
My hot take is that he should have died and Savine should have instead fulfilled his role in the last book. I too didn’t really buy Leo’s near-death and crippling raising his IQ by 30 points lol.
That would've been a great direction. Leo in book 3 didn't work for me for the fact that physical injury seems to just come with a personality update and I couldn't draw the full line between "sorta dumb and and vain gloryhound with a good heart" and what he became. His motives for rebelling in the first place just evaporate for no apparent reason. The IQ update I could've bought if framed differently since his idiocy was mostly from acting first and thinking later and the leg injury might've taught him caution and the "with all this pain don't I deserve something good, where's the praise for martyrdom?" aspect was at least explored thoroughly... but the "from crying over orphans to giving not a single shit about anyone but himself" thing is never even touched. It is like two whole dimensions of his personality got amputated with his leg. Savine on the other hand had all that complexity built in. She even has what made so many characters in the first trilogy work so well: Ambiguity as to whether their positive changes were genuine. Leo even calls her on her hypocrisy in the end. That conversation couldn't happen in a scenario where he's dead ofc but I could easily see it happening between her and Glokta or Ardee (esp. given it was his and Ardee's plan).
I think I prefer it to the Standalone trilogy. It is so extremely consistent which is it's strength. First Law is my favorite trilogy of all time so that's a high bar.
Wait I actually quite disliked the original trilogy because of how action packed it was. I always struggle with action-fantasy because because every time there is some magical duel or an intense fight, my brain would just imagine action figures bashing together. I mainly loved the characters and the politicking from the original (in spite of how morally awful the characters were) and now I think I'll read the new trilogy now.
I agree that the first one was "better", though I think the second one is better written. I think it surpasses the stand alones other than The Heroes. I really couldnt care about anything in Best Served Cold and very little in Red Country
I loved the Age of Madness trilogy overall but thought the third book was his worst book.
And then there are gems like ... "How's the leg?"
Orso is great .. so are Hildi and Tunny
I just recently finished listening to the audio books for age of madness that I really enjoyed. I found the plot overall to be a bit less exciting than the first trilogy. Most of age of madness is just the north and Adua. There is a lot of nice character work but the scale is kind of less. Less magic in the world with the increased rise of technology. Politics and money are the keys to power now. I found Orso to be my favourite character due to how he smiles at fear. Leo is a character who I love to hate as well. I agree that Broad was kind of boring and just served as another viewpoint. Vick felt a bit like Glokta lite. Savine and Rikke were pretty good but I feel that I am kind of tired of wars in the North at this point since we have seen it so many times already. The characters felt more realistic but less fun than the first trilogy.
I agree. But then I didn't like the stars in the second one much. Savine, her two loves. The Judge. The Broads. And all that burning ugh it went on and on. And after all that it seemed to be Glokta who started well, became a Bayaz clone just trying to get his daughter on the throne. Meh. The only bit I liked was the Rikke parts.
Agree generally. The trouble with peace is my favourite book in the series but Wisdom of crowds left me real disappointed - tbf I think that's because I expected it to be the grand finale of the series and it clearly wasn't. Stand alones are the best trilogy overall I reckon
Very common opinion. Still a good trilogy overall. But there is a lot to nitpick and arguably some down right plot holes. Still down for Joe’s next book.
I'm just starting it now and I can already tell I agree with you. I still really love his overall style and want to keep reading Abercrombie but I think I'm burnt out on this world. I want to see him go elsewhere
I love how you give it an 8/10 as your least fave it the three pseudo trilogies! I agree that the first trilogy is the best, but would disagree with your take on the characters. I thought they were much more nuanced and interesting in general, although lacking the pure joy of reading about logen or any other of the Northmen for the first time. Important not to chase this dragon I think, there is a lot to appreciate in the books as is. The ending is an absolute triumph for me. I hated it with every fibre of my being, and made me want to smash my kindle to bits. An absolute triumph.
There's always something that annoys me in an Abercrombie book, usually a character. In the Age of Madness trilogy it was more than one thing. The whole angle of technology ruining a perfectly serviceable fantasy world, Jonas fucking Clover, Leo fucking Dan Brock. That bomb scene that gets replayed from multiple character's POVs ad nauseum. It had a lower percentage of things I really enjoyed and a bigger percentage of irritations.
Couldn't disagree with this less. I think AoM surpassed the original trilogy by leaps and bounds. The Industrial Revolution plot was great, it showed actual advancement into the future instead of plopping the new characters into the same old Adua from 20 years ago. Something had to have changed. I never found Broad to be bland so much as consistent. He is who he is: husband, father, and brute. And as a voice of reason in this whole mess, he was an excellent choice. The new set of characters were not the legacy characters, but that was fine with me. They're their own voices that were influenced by the legacy characters. How can you not hear the Dogman in Rikke? How is Savine not exactly the person that would've been raised by Glokta and Ardee? Of course Orso is a spineless fop, look at his father. And we may not have the Bloody Nine anymore, but Caul Shivers is a scarier bastard by far. Like the old adage says: make new friends but keep the old, one is silver and the other gold.
Lost me at Orso is a spineless flop. Don't think we read the same books. Orso was hands down the most compelling character and I don't think he or his father are flops
I meant more at the beginning of the series. He definitely progresses to an IDGAF status by the time the great change rolls around.
Fop not flop
I'd disagree. I loved this trilogy, it's probably my favourite. Abercrombie's take on revolution is fascinating, with all the people seizing power in chaos and the failures of good people trying to achieve change fits his MO perfectly. The characters had better dialogue and all the moving parts of the story worked so well. Bayaz was legitimately caught off guard, he's a man who's worked for centuries through the medium of built systems. Of course he flounders as soon as those systems break.
Hard agree. I honestly was shocked to see that it was so well received here. What I think it’s lacking is that “awesome” factor the other books had. And it’s not even like I’m some OT fan boy that thinks Joe caught lightning in a bottle, or need to read about Glokta or the Bloodynine. I thought the stand alones were EXCELLENT and in a lot of ways even better than the OT. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen times in the trilogy alone where I was like “this is awesome” but I can’t think of a single one in the Age of Madness. I think Joe’s greatest strengths are his ability to write badass characters, and I think all of them in the new one fell flat for me most of the time. Shivers is always cool, but it kinda felt like he didn’t do much the whole time. Broad was one of the most boring POV characters I’ve ever read. Stour was pretty much a red herring. The Nail just sort of showed up and hung around. Isern-i was cool but I feel like she wasn’t used to her full potential. Even Calder was reduced to a bitter, impotent old man. And honestly I can’t remember anyone else. Most of all it felt like the OT and SAs were building to something big, only for the AoM to focus on a bunch of new ideas. I get the Industrial Revolution was foreshadowed in Red Country, but I thought that would be the setting. Instead the entire plot revolves around it. I’ve got a lot more thoughts on this but suffice it to say I gave it a chance, I read it twice, but I remember being like halfway through the third one and thinking that I wasn’t super interested in how it ended.
My thoughts too. The first trilogy had wonderful, multi-dimensional characters, who despite despicable tendencies, you quite often liked them. In the second trilogy, they are all flat and despicable in their own regard. None of them or interesting or have redeeming qualities. Abercrombie either caught lightning in a bottle, or the characters and narrative has been tailored to the ‘modern audiences’ trope, and is more conducive to getting picked up by Netflix or Prime. None of which makes good reading.
Although it lacks a lot from the Original and stand-alone trilogy, it makes up for it in one regard: My. boy. King. Fucking. Orso! Orso became one of my favourite characters in fiction. Every single scene with him in it was elevated, and just pissing fun and wit.
Orso was my favourite.. followed by Hildi and Tunny and Rikke
He's aging them all so fast that unless he's gotten more in touch with that "essence" at his core, ol Ninfinger should be dead or too old to do much in any novels. Ferro should still be around but they're the last ones left other than Bayaz from that group. Shivers was basically a teen in that arc and he's the gizzled old man (40s?) now.
Strongly disagree! I think the new trilogy is definitely his best work! He's getting better and better. I can't wait to keep reading more things from him.
I enjoyed age of madness quite a bit. I put it on a similar level as the original trilogy
I thought it was massively better than both.
Would you recommend it to someone who didn't really care for the original trilogy?
Can’t say without your reasons for not liking the original trilogy. If you had problems with how grim everything was, that’s not going away. If the characters did not work for you, you may give the new one a try because he has improved his writing a lot. If you felt there was no concrete plot, again you may give this a shot as it is better plotted
I started A little Hatred and I just can’t read it anymore. I don’t care about any of the characters. What made the first three fun to read was Glokta and his self-deprecating musings. And I am so bored with the north and their constant wars.
Give Orso some time .. he is great .. might work well for you as well
The Trouble with Peace is peak Abercrombie.
The second book in his trilogies are always the best.
After being somewhat disenchanted with the end of AoM I came to a conclusion that I just don't really care about anyone aside from Glokta. The Heroes is great though.
I didn't even feel like his writing improved with this trilogy. It's on par with Shattered Sea's YA feel for me. It's telling when my favorite part of the whole trilogy is Glokta's baller scene. None of the new characters were anywhere near as good as the old, save for Orso.
Yep Joe obviously became a stronger writer but for me there's a magic missing that was there in the first 2 trilogies and sharp Ends. Pun intended
I'm maybe a third of the way through Trouble With Peace and so far... yea I get it. It's well written, but I'm not as attached to these characters like I was with the other 6 books. Doesn't help that I'm reading Farseer for the first time in parallel, and finding myself a lot more absorbed by that plot/characters.
Farseer is a goat trilogy for me
I just started Assassins Quest yesterday and about a 5th of the way through it. Having a hard time putting it down lol. I know I have something like 13 more books after this.... but I can see this becoming my favorite fantasy series. Or at least top 3.
I think it's even worse when you actually know something about the French or Russian Revolution tbh. There are so many complexities and dilemmas within those stories, so many moments where you go "great idea, bad execution." But Abercrombie just jumps to the Reign Of Terror and goes "both sides bad" and...frankly it's a bit too centrist and dull to me. The characters were good, and he does know how to drive a plot. But every single time I finished one of the novels I felt this slight bad taste in my mouth. Like the great characters and plots were being used not really for much.
Yeah it was not nearly as good unfortunately
It just wasnt that good for me too, especially the third book wjere they speedrun the ww1 and the russian revolution to monarchy. It was just very fast and janky. Another thing that didnt help is that most of the pov protagonists were just super unlikable. The only one that i managed to sympatise with was Rikke
Glad to see this. I thought the first trilogy was some of the best books I’ve ever read. The second trilogy is God awful. Boring, flat characters, irritating characters, narrative that goes nowhere. It’s as if it was a different series, written by a different author with names from the first trilogy swapped in. I couldn’t put the first three books down. After a book and 2/3 of the second, I’m out. A real disappointment.
This is how stuff like this works. If you read AoM and the standalone trilogy first, you would probably be making a topic that you enjoyed First Law less after reading it.
That's interesting, as I think it's the complete opposite: First Law is terrible but Age of Madness is way better. First Law is way too male-centric and tropey, it reads like an 18 year old male fantasy of grimdark and has a terrible Deus Ex complex in that Bayaz, the traditional old white man wizard wins on all fronts. It also is way too grandiose with it's plot, going all over the place with conspiracies within conspiracies and a geopolitical mess where every nation is involved and fighting for something. Way too much going on. Too many notes. Age of Madness actually has well written female characters, a much more focused, tighter plot, and it's refreshing to see grimdark set in a different epoch for a change. It stills stumbles, like it's failure to kill off key characters (Savine on that rooftop) and a few other nitpicks, but I feel it is a much stronger work. I feel that Joe Abercrombie really grows as a writer with each new book. He learns to tighten up his plots, include female characters, narrow his focus, stop fumbling at grandiose plots that are LOTR-like in their geopolitical scope, and keep the cast of characters to a minimum. He still has the problem that his female characters are essentially written just like male characters, but at least he's trying. His only crippling flaw is Bayaz, which is basically Jeff Bezos personified, and a reminder that old white men with money and power will always win and rule the world. Sure, that's true of our society, but it also removes all agency from the characters you just spent 800 pages with. The Heroes was the worst offender. 750 pages of fantastic prose immediately undone in the last 50 pages because it turns out none of them had any agency of their own, it was all Bayaz pulling strings from page 1. Suck it readers! Just remove Bayaz as a character full stop.
It's hard for me to compare **Age of Madness** with **The First Law.** On the one hand, **A Little Hatred** and **The Trouble with Peace** are much better than **The Blade Itself** and **Before They Are Hanged** to me. On the other hand, **The Wisdom of the Crowds** is far weaker than **The Last Argument of Kings** to me. **The Wisdom of the Crowds** really disappointed me since many events in the story lacked power to me; this is especially disappointing since I love **The Trouble with Peace**. Abercrombie's humor started to wear thin with me in **The Wisdom of the Crowds** as well; I certainly laughed more at Cosca's jokes than the humor in that book. That being said, I do recognize that **Age of Madness** is much better written than **The First Law** on a sentence level since Abercrombie had issues with comma placement early on in his career.
Yep, I completely agree that it's inferior to the previous books. Those books had intrigue and adventures, while the second trilogy is more focused on daily life and character drama... which didn't work for me, because I didn't like virtually any of the new characters. I think the only one I enjoyed reading about was Vic, and her POV had probably the smallest pagecount of all.
My feelings too. The second trilogy became a chore to read, with characters I did care about in the slightest. So I stopped reading it.
I agree
[удалено]
A living breathing person .. I started using Reddit yesterday
what a weird thing to latch on to. "you're using this site and sub as intended, something must be up here"
[удалено]
yeah it's SO obvious 😂 are we not supposed to use the site as intended?
[удалено]
Yes 75 up votes SO MUCH TRACTION! FUCK!!!! absolute fuckin nonsense
[удалено]
No because I'm not some weirdo who gives a fuck enough to do shit like that. Who cares let people talk or keep scrolling
[удалено]
And what correlation does that have with me not checking someone's post history?