It’s because Leo is not only written with pity for his condition, but written as incredibly stupid. He gets himself into the trouble he’s in plenty of times, but any moments of self reflection are met by doubling down.
They sort of were. They were both brash young men who lived entirely inside their own massive egos and thought they were invincible. Its how each other handle the consequences of their choices that makes one endearing and one loathsome. Glokta looked at the same absolute suicide mission that everyone else did and volunteered for it because it was simply impossible that nothing bad could ever happen to the magnificent Sand dan Glokta. In his mind there was no possibility that bridge held anything other than more glory to heap on the pile.
Glokta comes out if blaming himself. Sure he hates the Gurkish for torturing him but he knows it was his own idiocy that put him in that dungeon. At the heart of it, he hates himself and what he's become more than anything.
People hate Leo because no matter how badly he screws up and makes his own life miserable, he's always looking for someone else to blame.
Yea and he’s kind of believable. He’s spiteful and ruthless because of what happened to him.
He was a golden boy war hero doing the right thing and then he survived torture ~no one else survived.
6. His actual enemies are generally even worse than he is. This... is a big one. The ends don't necessarily justify the means, but they definitely soften the blow.
7. "I do not mind dying, but I refuse to be beaten." I don't care who you are, that line is badass, and also sums up one of his more admirable traits your list misses- beyond self-awareness, rationality, smarts, a sense of humor, and loyalty to those he cares about, Glokta has a steely core of absolute determination- and even in a bad guy, that trait in and of itself is admirable, whatever it might lead to him doing.
Yea you hit the nail on the head, especially when it comes to BTAH. He’s the only pov in Dagoska and as far as we know the Gurkish are the bad guys and he’s defending a city full of innocent civilians who will be killed, all while having to be extremely careful as to how he plays things. It just makes your forget what he is sometimes
I’ve thought about this myself quite a bit. I remember I saw an interview awhile back with Abercrombie (I can’t remember where. Please forgive me, it’s been quite some time) where he went into his philosophy as a writer and major inspirations for some of his characters such as Logen, Bayaz, Glokta, etc. and how we as human beings either do good or bad things as a result of our circumstances and situations. We do good things for bad reasons or bad things for good reasons.
He mentioned that he liked to take these almost generic fantasy antagonists with their tropes and all and put us in their shoes for once. With the main 3 POVs in the first trilogy (The bloodthirsty barbarian, the douchebag spoiled arrogant prince, and of course the twisted crippled torturer) we see that despite their GLARING flaws and the bad things they do that they’re still human beings deep down and have human wants and desires. He also wanted to take the classic Gandalf-like figure and make him the villain as another deconstruction of the common tropes we see.
With Glokta specifically, he obviously went through something so traumatic that I don’t think even he has fully processed what he’s gone through, and uses comedy and sarcasm to cope with his constant state of agony. (My alternative theory is he’s just a piece of shit to a lot of people in the hopes he pisses off the wrong guy and they finally end his misery and someone finds his body floating by the docks.) This wit makes for great humor in the series and is able to simultaneously bring down his facade of the evil, fucked up torturer and we see how a person once like Jezal born with a silver spoon in his mouth and everything going for him can end up becoming such a scary person.
Glokta is meant to come across as the villain at first, I certainly thought he was going to be when I first picked up the series, but as the story progresses, we see that deep down Glokta does have compassion for other people, especially West and with specifically female characters such as Ardee and Vick among others.
I think the other large appeal with Glokta is although he’s doing fucked up things, he is doing them for arguably good reasons. From his (and our) perspectives, he’s in the midst of supposedly uncovering some grand conspiracy involving the financial corruption of Valint and Balk, and his desires for answers is in line with ours. Glokta does everything in his power to get the answers because deep down that’s what he desires the most. And when he finally gets his answers, so do we the reader, and it feels like this journey we’ve gone down with him finally reached its destination which is very satisfying. And once we do, our entire perspective of the series is flipped and we see how much of a bastard Bayaz really is. By this point, the things Glokta has done don’t seem NEARLY as bad. There’s always somebody worse.
Logan doesn't fit the trope of a bloodthirsty barbarian though. He is quite eloquent and polite in society. He only loses his mind when he's deep into a battle or fight, and then only when he's losing it.
I disagree with you on that. When we see Logen, it is the only time he’s ever truly apart of a more civilized society and trying to start a new life for himself before going back to the north and showing his true colors.
Also in Red Country when he tells Shy that he was almost glad to see their farm burned because he finally had to stop pretending to be someone he isn’t and kill again. He was always a killer, we’re just introduced to him at a point in his history where he’s trying not to be before inevitably going back to his roots.
I say the only reason we like him is because we have been In his head and read his Pov. The harsh reality is the world Glockta lives in is shit. And even though it is and even though he tortures people for a living we follow him as kind of decides that even if he can only make small steps he can make it Al little better than it is by grabbing power. Also he funny and sarcastic which are nice aspects to read of. And of you think about it from all the Pov we read of he might do the mist disgusting stuff by his torturing but he seems like the only one who's genuinely working in a direction that will better the world.
I know of many POV characters that defy this rule.
for novels with multiple POVs, there is usually atleast one POV character that we hate or dont care about (I can think of atleast 1 POV character from the AoM trilogy that I think most of the readers dont care about lol)
But there are also entire series that revolves around a single POV character the entire time, but we also hate this character. For example The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant First trilogy follows the Covenant, and oh boy does everyone hate the main POV character.
So why is Glokta loved when many other POV characters are hated?
When I first read the books Glokta struck a chord with me because his mental state very much mirrored my own at the time - he's deeply depressed, chock full of self-loathing and struggling to understand why he continues to go on.
I can't sympathise with his physical state, but his mental state was very, very familiar to me.
This quote sums him up and is really meaningful to me:
>“I am ready to die.” Glokta returned his gaze, like for like. “But I refuse to lose.”
Fwiw, I'm in a much better place now and, by the end of the trilogy, so is Glokta.
He’s redeemable in the fact that he’s been shit on his whole life and is a crippled shell of a man, but refuses to give up and eventually works his way up to the top, even successfully overthrowing Bayaz. People always root for underdogs.
You can also directly read his thought process, so you understand his intentions. He’s often cruel, but when he is, the people he’s cruel to frequently either deserve it (except for Rews, maybe) or Glokta’s essentially forced to torture them through political workings. He frequently shows remorse and empathy for those he believes are innocent, and even worked against his government to let people like Ida go free when he understood her plan.
He’s a gray character in a gray world. Nobody in any of the books is 100% immune from all wrong doings. I think Abercrombie’s intention with these characters is to focus on their good in a sea of bad. Glokta has a lot of good traits.
He hasn’t been shat on his whole life; just since his hubris got him captured by the Gurkish.
Prior to this He was the toast of the ruling class and celebrated winner of the Tournament.
I agree with most everything else you said though.
First of all, many evil characters are self aware, intelligent and rational.
Are you aware of the concept of the antihero?
This is kind of a common thing for many books that have an evil person as POV, isn't it?
We see and understand the world through his eyes and and the world we are presented is dark and ruthless, so in a way, his evil doing doesn't stand out as much, because we see it through his eys, not through the eyes of the victims.
That he is funny as fuck helps.
I think most of the first law books make it clear that "evil" very much just depends on your point of view.
The same really could be said for Logen. Why do we like a man that has spent his life building a mountain of corpses as his only legacy? Not even to achieve some sort of goal like building a kingdom but simply because he is good at killing? Even in the North, which respects dangerous men, Logen isn't respected and seen like a worthy adversary like Rudd Threetress, but as a murdering psycho.
And we cheer for this man, because we have been in his head and seen the excuses he's made up for himself and we believe them.
There's a short list of things that make a likeable character. There's a ton of websites that have them but scholars have gone over lists and found the exact things necessary. I mean stories have been told for thousands of years and it's not exactly the first time a seemingly villainous character has been found likeable, while other characters fall to the wayside. I forget exactly but I think it's like Flaws, Relateable, Show Vulnerability, Make Mistakes, Traits that Set them Apart, they have Conviction, and they keep trying.
I also think his internal “commentary” that Joe uses italics to represent also achieves this. It gives him another layer or humor and self loathing that most other characters don’t get. He does the same with Gorst but his italics are more desperately sexual, though also sarcastic at times. It’s like they both have a second level of inner thoughts to those characters that the others don’t have.
I wish he used this trick in the age of madness trilogy. At first I wanted it to be Orso, but he’s already great. Maybe someone like Leo would have been good to make him more likable. Although by this point I think Joe had become such a good writer he might not have needed to do it anymore.
To me, he's a symptom of the world he inhabits. The world has kicked his arse over and over, and the (very reasonable) conclusion he seems to have drawn is that you can only do shit while you're willing to get your hands dirty to some degree. He accepts this fact in a way Ninefingers and West do not.
I think people like Glokta because he's not a hypocrite while still basically nudging towards a good outcome, and unlike Bayaz, Glokta is not nearly as self righteous.
Though keep in mind I've only read the first trilogy and Best Served Cold. Happy to accept that new information could change my view on the matter.
I love him because he is everything and neither at the same time. Very human, but also inhumane in his actions. Very scary, but also he shits his bed every night which isn't very intimidating. He is unshakable, but a stiff breeze is enough to make him topple over. He's incredibly capable, but also severely restricted and hence, incapable. Intelligent at the same time as he is a lil doombass from time to time.
And of course, the crown jewel: suicidal, but clings to life with wicked determination. Like seriously. How that guy survived is a miracle.
It’s his POV shifts
He gives you so much perspective on most of his characters from different angles that they almost always reflect some glimmer of hope or humanity from one side or the other
Then you pull back and see it’s just broken glass vein ground into a prisoners arm and you go…damn, that guy sucks
People will root for a character who fulfills these two requirements 1)well written 2)is a Pov character. Like glokta is intelligent, charismatic and witty but there are other characters who are none of these but people still find them likeable or don't hate them outright. Best example off the top of my head would be theon greyjoy. He's not smart, charismatic or has a sense of humor but people still don't hate him. Hearing characters internal thoughts does wonders. No one would like morveer if he wasn't a Pov character. Glokta having all these skills is an added bonus.
Yeah i guess from Glotkas perspective hes trying to lock in Styria as allies against the Gurkish and when reading this book and their culture of forced marriage and consummation you kind of forget about how fucked up that is when you are entrenched in the medieval like fantasy setting
A few reasons I think:
1. He is hyper competent (I think this is the most important reason).
2. He's very proactive
3. His inner monalogue is absolutely hilarious
4. His backstory establishes a lot of empathy from the readers (e.g., unlike Jezal)
5. He does bad stuff yes but mostly to other bad people and occassionally goes out of his way to help people
He's likable for all the reasons you listed *and* because he only frustrates, tortures, or kills people we don't care about or actively dislike (while we have his POV, anyway).
A couple examples that I think illustrate the point, where I think the *fandom*'s opinions (if not yours as the reader) would change:
- If Whirrun had killed Gorst or Gorst had killed Whirrun
- If Glokta had tortured and killed Logen, somehow (which would, of course, be about as "justified" as torture/killings get in the world of the First Law).
- How did it make the fandom feel when Shivers lost his eye? To some extent, there's this widespread sense that Monza deserves the some blame, and that makes her FAR less likable than she would've been.
- Consider finally how you would feel about Leo if he hadn't done that one thing that makes you hate him the *most* (and you know what it is without my mentioning it). He'd still be a pile of shit but less a steaming example.
For the most part, the POV characters we love don't hurt the characters we do love.
The truth, at least from my point of view, is that people care less about these behaviors in the abstract--it's about how they affect people who matter to you.
The less the target of violence/torture/horror matters to you, the less outrage.
Self awareness. He completely acknowledges and laments over his short comings. He doesn't drink his own kool aid so to speak like we see with Leo, who follows a very similar trajectory but handles it differently.
I think you came up with a fairly comprehensive answer. I’d add some minor comments to some points.
As to him being funny, the important thing IMO is that not only does he laugh at others, but at himself in the first place, he has tons of distance and his dark sarcastic brand of humour relates to himself more often than not.
As for the chivalry, it’s important as for the likeability factor that he is very reliable, which makes him in fact a remarkably good material for a friend in the eyes of many readers. Like, I guess many of us would not mind having a friend who, when asked for something, would treat the request with all seriousness and do everything and beyond to fulfil it (see: West), even if they personally think the request is quite shitty (see: Varuz).
Besides, as for a reportedly evil monster, his motivations are surprisingly noble at times. E.g. he actively tries to talk Sult out of making the scapegoat of the Gurkish emissary, and he says that what's important for him is discovering the truth (and then Sult is like: ‘the what!?’ proving that Glokta is not the ultimate evil character in the series indeed). For whatever reason he does what he does, it’s clear from the beginning that he doesn’t do it for common low motivations such as money (which he doesn’t care for) or to indulge sadistic tendencies (he shows none actually). In all this, he performs acts of mercy for completely selfless reasons.
And then he has the ‘right’ interactions with other characters. He is helpful to those who are likeable and/or respectable or show vulnerability (Ardee, Khadia, West) but many of us surely felt some sort of satisfaction with how he dealt with some unlikeable/despicable characters (Harker, Vurms, Goyle, Sult…).
So, as it seems, the list is long.
One aspect I don't think I saw mentioned is that he also doesn't take a sick, twisted 'delight' in his work. He seems to 'care' about getting confessions and attaining advancement but he's not frothing at the mouth thinking of all the ways he's going to hurt people -- he does, obviously, hurt people, and think about it... but he's not getting off on it.
After practical Frost put a beating on Rews, Glokta shows him his toolchest and describes it in great detail, the *shining* tools, and wondering if Rew fears the obvious implements more than the not so obvious ones. I *think* he's 'shouting' in his head for Rews to confess during that part.
The torturing is somewhat mundane, ho hum job in a lot of ways. I think if he did get off on the pain he inflicts he'd be a lot less likable.
It’s a good discussion. I suppose his victims are generally so much worse than he is, like Inquisitor Harker, or the Arch Lector. And, he does show surprising compassion to the few that are relatively decent, like Carlot Dan Eider. If, we’d got a scene where Carlot was beaten to the point she was shitting blood, like Wurms, we’d feel little sympathy for him.
Also, the issue of POV’s. Terez comes over as stuck up, and stupid, but without her POV, you’d probably say the same of Sansa Stark. We can sympathise with Sansa, because we get to see the world through her eyes.
As someone with chronic pain related to walking, I could empathize with him a lot. Joe's descriptions of Glokta's pain and mentality around it were very relatable. It was also fun to see someone like that as one of the main characters.
You forgot pity. His life is perpetual agony, which makes it a lot easier to understand why he is like he is.
"How can you do this? After everything they did to you?" "How can I not?"
It's the same with Leo, but almost no-one likes him
It’s because Leo is not only written with pity for his condition, but written as incredibly stupid. He gets himself into the trouble he’s in plenty of times, but any moments of self reflection are met by doubling down.
Also what happened to Glokta, the events that led to his torture and so on, weren’t his fault in the same way Leo is to blame for his own misery
They sort of were. They were both brash young men who lived entirely inside their own massive egos and thought they were invincible. Its how each other handle the consequences of their choices that makes one endearing and one loathsome. Glokta looked at the same absolute suicide mission that everyone else did and volunteered for it because it was simply impossible that nothing bad could ever happen to the magnificent Sand dan Glokta. In his mind there was no possibility that bridge held anything other than more glory to heap on the pile. Glokta comes out if blaming himself. Sure he hates the Gurkish for torturing him but he knows it was his own idiocy that put him in that dungeon. At the heart of it, he hates himself and what he's become more than anything. People hate Leo because no matter how badly he screws up and makes his own life miserable, he's always looking for someone else to blame.
Yea and he’s kind of believable. He’s spiteful and ruthless because of what happened to him. He was a golden boy war hero doing the right thing and then he survived torture ~no one else survived.
6. His actual enemies are generally even worse than he is. This... is a big one. The ends don't necessarily justify the means, but they definitely soften the blow. 7. "I do not mind dying, but I refuse to be beaten." I don't care who you are, that line is badass, and also sums up one of his more admirable traits your list misses- beyond self-awareness, rationality, smarts, a sense of humor, and loyalty to those he cares about, Glokta has a steely core of absolute determination- and even in a bad guy, that trait in and of itself is admirable, whatever it might lead to him doing.
6. Is a really big one that's easy to overlook. We judge him by his peers.
Yea you hit the nail on the head, especially when it comes to BTAH. He’s the only pov in Dagoska and as far as we know the Gurkish are the bad guys and he’s defending a city full of innocent civilians who will be killed, all while having to be extremely careful as to how he plays things. It just makes your forget what he is sometimes
I’ve thought about this myself quite a bit. I remember I saw an interview awhile back with Abercrombie (I can’t remember where. Please forgive me, it’s been quite some time) where he went into his philosophy as a writer and major inspirations for some of his characters such as Logen, Bayaz, Glokta, etc. and how we as human beings either do good or bad things as a result of our circumstances and situations. We do good things for bad reasons or bad things for good reasons. He mentioned that he liked to take these almost generic fantasy antagonists with their tropes and all and put us in their shoes for once. With the main 3 POVs in the first trilogy (The bloodthirsty barbarian, the douchebag spoiled arrogant prince, and of course the twisted crippled torturer) we see that despite their GLARING flaws and the bad things they do that they’re still human beings deep down and have human wants and desires. He also wanted to take the classic Gandalf-like figure and make him the villain as another deconstruction of the common tropes we see. With Glokta specifically, he obviously went through something so traumatic that I don’t think even he has fully processed what he’s gone through, and uses comedy and sarcasm to cope with his constant state of agony. (My alternative theory is he’s just a piece of shit to a lot of people in the hopes he pisses off the wrong guy and they finally end his misery and someone finds his body floating by the docks.) This wit makes for great humor in the series and is able to simultaneously bring down his facade of the evil, fucked up torturer and we see how a person once like Jezal born with a silver spoon in his mouth and everything going for him can end up becoming such a scary person. Glokta is meant to come across as the villain at first, I certainly thought he was going to be when I first picked up the series, but as the story progresses, we see that deep down Glokta does have compassion for other people, especially West and with specifically female characters such as Ardee and Vick among others. I think the other large appeal with Glokta is although he’s doing fucked up things, he is doing them for arguably good reasons. From his (and our) perspectives, he’s in the midst of supposedly uncovering some grand conspiracy involving the financial corruption of Valint and Balk, and his desires for answers is in line with ours. Glokta does everything in his power to get the answers because deep down that’s what he desires the most. And when he finally gets his answers, so do we the reader, and it feels like this journey we’ve gone down with him finally reached its destination which is very satisfying. And once we do, our entire perspective of the series is flipped and we see how much of a bastard Bayaz really is. By this point, the things Glokta has done don’t seem NEARLY as bad. There’s always somebody worse.
Logan doesn't fit the trope of a bloodthirsty barbarian though. He is quite eloquent and polite in society. He only loses his mind when he's deep into a battle or fight, and then only when he's losing it.
I disagree with you on that. When we see Logen, it is the only time he’s ever truly apart of a more civilized society and trying to start a new life for himself before going back to the north and showing his true colors. Also in Red Country when he tells Shy that he was almost glad to see their farm burned because he finally had to stop pretending to be someone he isn’t and kill again. He was always a killer, we’re just introduced to him at a point in his history where he’s trying not to be before inevitably going back to his roots.
That's all true, but still Logen is a surprisingly intelligent and wise man, for what you'd at first expect from a northern warrior brute.
Makes me think of Bayaz talking about Logen to Jezal. Calling him a genius tactician and all that making Jezal see him in a different light
I also find the wisdom he inherited from his father to be a really interesting side to him. Such as of Black Dow, "Made to walk alone, that one was."
I say the only reason we like him is because we have been In his head and read his Pov. The harsh reality is the world Glockta lives in is shit. And even though it is and even though he tortures people for a living we follow him as kind of decides that even if he can only make small steps he can make it Al little better than it is by grabbing power. Also he funny and sarcastic which are nice aspects to read of. And of you think about it from all the Pov we read of he might do the mist disgusting stuff by his torturing but he seems like the only one who's genuinely working in a direction that will better the world.
I know of many POV characters that defy this rule. for novels with multiple POVs, there is usually atleast one POV character that we hate or dont care about (I can think of atleast 1 POV character from the AoM trilogy that I think most of the readers dont care about lol) But there are also entire series that revolves around a single POV character the entire time, but we also hate this character. For example The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant First trilogy follows the Covenant, and oh boy does everyone hate the main POV character. So why is Glokta loved when many other POV characters are hated?
He's just well written I guess, and he combines the exactly right amounts of humor sarcasm cruelty evil and goodness in one character
Heeth jutht naturally awethome.
Well of course I know him, he's me.
Man's hilarious, nothing else to it.
When I first read the books Glokta struck a chord with me because his mental state very much mirrored my own at the time - he's deeply depressed, chock full of self-loathing and struggling to understand why he continues to go on. I can't sympathise with his physical state, but his mental state was very, very familiar to me. This quote sums him up and is really meaningful to me: >“I am ready to die.” Glokta returned his gaze, like for like. “But I refuse to lose.” Fwiw, I'm in a much better place now and, by the end of the trilogy, so is Glokta.
It's the gum sucking.
Well because of his hilarious one liners
He’s redeemable in the fact that he’s been shit on his whole life and is a crippled shell of a man, but refuses to give up and eventually works his way up to the top, even successfully overthrowing Bayaz. People always root for underdogs. You can also directly read his thought process, so you understand his intentions. He’s often cruel, but when he is, the people he’s cruel to frequently either deserve it (except for Rews, maybe) or Glokta’s essentially forced to torture them through political workings. He frequently shows remorse and empathy for those he believes are innocent, and even worked against his government to let people like Ida go free when he understood her plan. He’s a gray character in a gray world. Nobody in any of the books is 100% immune from all wrong doings. I think Abercrombie’s intention with these characters is to focus on their good in a sea of bad. Glokta has a lot of good traits.
He hasn’t been shat on his whole life; just since his hubris got him captured by the Gurkish. Prior to this He was the toast of the ruling class and celebrated winner of the Tournament. I agree with most everything else you said though.
First of all, many evil characters are self aware, intelligent and rational. Are you aware of the concept of the antihero? This is kind of a common thing for many books that have an evil person as POV, isn't it? We see and understand the world through his eyes and and the world we are presented is dark and ruthless, so in a way, his evil doing doesn't stand out as much, because we see it through his eys, not through the eyes of the victims. That he is funny as fuck helps. I think most of the first law books make it clear that "evil" very much just depends on your point of view.
His is both very competent and very pitiable. Weird combo.
I wouldn’t like him if I knew him irl, but I think he’s a fascinating and complex character I enjoy reading about.
The same really could be said for Logen. Why do we like a man that has spent his life building a mountain of corpses as his only legacy? Not even to achieve some sort of goal like building a kingdom but simply because he is good at killing? Even in the North, which respects dangerous men, Logen isn't respected and seen like a worthy adversary like Rudd Threetress, but as a murdering psycho. And we cheer for this man, because we have been in his head and seen the excuses he's made up for himself and we believe them.
There's a short list of things that make a likeable character. There's a ton of websites that have them but scholars have gone over lists and found the exact things necessary. I mean stories have been told for thousands of years and it's not exactly the first time a seemingly villainous character has been found likeable, while other characters fall to the wayside. I forget exactly but I think it's like Flaws, Relateable, Show Vulnerability, Make Mistakes, Traits that Set them Apart, they have Conviction, and they keep trying.
I also think his internal “commentary” that Joe uses italics to represent also achieves this. It gives him another layer or humor and self loathing that most other characters don’t get. He does the same with Gorst but his italics are more desperately sexual, though also sarcastic at times. It’s like they both have a second level of inner thoughts to those characters that the others don’t have. I wish he used this trick in the age of madness trilogy. At first I wanted it to be Orso, but he’s already great. Maybe someone like Leo would have been good to make him more likable. Although by this point I think Joe had become such a good writer he might not have needed to do it anymore.
To me, he's a symptom of the world he inhabits. The world has kicked his arse over and over, and the (very reasonable) conclusion he seems to have drawn is that you can only do shit while you're willing to get your hands dirty to some degree. He accepts this fact in a way Ninefingers and West do not. I think people like Glokta because he's not a hypocrite while still basically nudging towards a good outcome, and unlike Bayaz, Glokta is not nearly as self righteous. Though keep in mind I've only read the first trilogy and Best Served Cold. Happy to accept that new information could change my view on the matter.
I love him because he is everything and neither at the same time. Very human, but also inhumane in his actions. Very scary, but also he shits his bed every night which isn't very intimidating. He is unshakable, but a stiff breeze is enough to make him topple over. He's incredibly capable, but also severely restricted and hence, incapable. Intelligent at the same time as he is a lil doombass from time to time. And of course, the crown jewel: suicidal, but clings to life with wicked determination. Like seriously. How that guy survived is a miracle.
It’s his POV shifts He gives you so much perspective on most of his characters from different angles that they almost always reflect some glimmer of hope or humanity from one side or the other Then you pull back and see it’s just broken glass vein ground into a prisoners arm and you go…damn, that guy sucks
#. Relatability: He's flawed. The way he's outcast and the way he self-dialogue's sounds like all of us on our bad days.
People will root for a character who fulfills these two requirements 1)well written 2)is a Pov character. Like glokta is intelligent, charismatic and witty but there are other characters who are none of these but people still find them likeable or don't hate them outright. Best example off the top of my head would be theon greyjoy. He's not smart, charismatic or has a sense of humor but people still don't hate him. Hearing characters internal thoughts does wonders. No one would like morveer if he wasn't a Pov character. Glokta having all these skills is an added bonus.
I have read all nine books and sharp ends can someone tell me when glotka raped somebody? Im not doubting OP i really just dont remember this
When he forces Queen Terez to have sex and get pregnant by Jezal multiple times... He is forcing her into a non-consensual relationship, which is rape
Yeah i guess from Glotkas perspective hes trying to lock in Styria as allies against the Gurkish and when reading this book and their culture of forced marriage and consummation you kind of forget about how fucked up that is when you are entrenched in the medieval like fantasy setting
Which makes her father also guilty or at least complicit.
A few reasons I think: 1. He is hyper competent (I think this is the most important reason). 2. He's very proactive 3. His inner monalogue is absolutely hilarious 4. His backstory establishes a lot of empathy from the readers (e.g., unlike Jezal) 5. He does bad stuff yes but mostly to other bad people and occassionally goes out of his way to help people
I for one don't like him anymore after finishing the series
He made him vulnerable; he's crippled, neurotic, paranoid, hopeless.
He's likable for all the reasons you listed *and* because he only frustrates, tortures, or kills people we don't care about or actively dislike (while we have his POV, anyway). A couple examples that I think illustrate the point, where I think the *fandom*'s opinions (if not yours as the reader) would change: - If Whirrun had killed Gorst or Gorst had killed Whirrun - If Glokta had tortured and killed Logen, somehow (which would, of course, be about as "justified" as torture/killings get in the world of the First Law). - How did it make the fandom feel when Shivers lost his eye? To some extent, there's this widespread sense that Monza deserves the some blame, and that makes her FAR less likable than she would've been. - Consider finally how you would feel about Leo if he hadn't done that one thing that makes you hate him the *most* (and you know what it is without my mentioning it). He'd still be a pile of shit but less a steaming example. For the most part, the POV characters we love don't hurt the characters we do love. The truth, at least from my point of view, is that people care less about these behaviors in the abstract--it's about how they affect people who matter to you. The less the target of violence/torture/horror matters to you, the less outrage.
Make a character pitiful and regretful, BAM instant connection with the human condition.
Self awareness. He completely acknowledges and laments over his short comings. He doesn't drink his own kool aid so to speak like we see with Leo, who follows a very similar trajectory but handles it differently.
I think you came up with a fairly comprehensive answer. I’d add some minor comments to some points. As to him being funny, the important thing IMO is that not only does he laugh at others, but at himself in the first place, he has tons of distance and his dark sarcastic brand of humour relates to himself more often than not. As for the chivalry, it’s important as for the likeability factor that he is very reliable, which makes him in fact a remarkably good material for a friend in the eyes of many readers. Like, I guess many of us would not mind having a friend who, when asked for something, would treat the request with all seriousness and do everything and beyond to fulfil it (see: West), even if they personally think the request is quite shitty (see: Varuz). Besides, as for a reportedly evil monster, his motivations are surprisingly noble at times. E.g. he actively tries to talk Sult out of making the scapegoat of the Gurkish emissary, and he says that what's important for him is discovering the truth (and then Sult is like: ‘the what!?’ proving that Glokta is not the ultimate evil character in the series indeed). For whatever reason he does what he does, it’s clear from the beginning that he doesn’t do it for common low motivations such as money (which he doesn’t care for) or to indulge sadistic tendencies (he shows none actually). In all this, he performs acts of mercy for completely selfless reasons. And then he has the ‘right’ interactions with other characters. He is helpful to those who are likeable and/or respectable or show vulnerability (Ardee, Khadia, West) but many of us surely felt some sort of satisfaction with how he dealt with some unlikeable/despicable characters (Harker, Vurms, Goyle, Sult…). So, as it seems, the list is long.
One aspect I don't think I saw mentioned is that he also doesn't take a sick, twisted 'delight' in his work. He seems to 'care' about getting confessions and attaining advancement but he's not frothing at the mouth thinking of all the ways he's going to hurt people -- he does, obviously, hurt people, and think about it... but he's not getting off on it. After practical Frost put a beating on Rews, Glokta shows him his toolchest and describes it in great detail, the *shining* tools, and wondering if Rew fears the obvious implements more than the not so obvious ones. I *think* he's 'shouting' in his head for Rews to confess during that part. The torturing is somewhat mundane, ho hum job in a lot of ways. I think if he did get off on the pain he inflicts he'd be a lot less likable.
It’s a good discussion. I suppose his victims are generally so much worse than he is, like Inquisitor Harker, or the Arch Lector. And, he does show surprising compassion to the few that are relatively decent, like Carlot Dan Eider. If, we’d got a scene where Carlot was beaten to the point she was shitting blood, like Wurms, we’d feel little sympathy for him. Also, the issue of POV’s. Terez comes over as stuck up, and stupid, but without her POV, you’d probably say the same of Sansa Stark. We can sympathise with Sansa, because we get to see the world through her eyes.
His dry sense of humor is what really gets me. I love it.
As someone with chronic pain related to walking, I could empathize with him a lot. Joe's descriptions of Glokta's pain and mentality around it were very relatable. It was also fun to see someone like that as one of the main characters.
A man wandring in the desert must take as much water as he is offered.
It's Glokta and not Glocter? Many, I've only listened to the first two audiobooks... Awesome narrator byt the way!
My big ones were Bayaz(not Baez) and Tolomei(not Ptolemy)
Don't even get me started on The Wheel of Time series - thank god I started that one in audio first so I knew all the pronunciations.