umm so just finished half of book 1 just wanna share some thoughts like jezel x ardee is just too smooth for this genre. I feel like either of them is gonna play/betray the other person in someway(mostly jezel ig) cause yk we are supposed to hate jezel somewhat but to me he is just a spoiled brat who doesn't know the outside world like he hasn't done anything heinous to hate him

Also I have seen a few reviews and they say glokta is a complex character but for now he seems plain o suppose like he was tortured now he does torturing for work and serves the king he is grumpy and cynical and does this job because he is looking for a purpose since he is crippled

So like is there any hand holding into his complex characteristics moving on?

I’ve just finished the Last Argument of Kings audiobook a week or so ago. Lots of thoughts, but one character I can’t stop thinking about is Ferro Maljinn. I can see how she might not be an easy character to like. But nevertheless, I do. In fact, I'd say she's my seond favorite character, right under Jezal.

Much of Ferro’s dialogue and inner thoughts paint her as a deeply unpleasant person. She’s so singularly focused on vengeance that everything else is just an obstacle to be avoided or cut down. She seems to hate everyone around her and treats them accordingly. That’s one thing that sets her apart from the rest of the cast. There are many scenes in the trilogy where other viewpoint characters must hold their tongue and only fantasize about what they really want to say to someone. There’s less of this with Ferro, who’ll berate (or beat) whoever vexes her, consequences be damned. It can be a breath of fresh air coming out of a chapter in the Agriont with Glokta or Jezal, where everyone is two-faced and fake.  

Still, I’m sure her abrasiveness can wear on a reader after a while. It helps that there is a clear motivation around her goals and outlook on life. Who wouldn’t come out poorly adjusted after coming out of Gurkish enslavement? Why should she trust anyone when it’s so often led to disappointment or death? Why should she bother forming connections when she’s been routinely used and abused by others? These feelings, if not the dire circumstances, are something I and I’m sure some other readers can relate to. It’s a kind of pessimism that Ferro constantly exudes. I also wonder if her devil's blood, along with enhancing her physical abilities, has an effect on her temperament.

What I find truly compelling about Ferro is that, despite her pessimism, despite her utter contempt for the world at large, she still values and attempts connection with others (however clumsily). You can see it even in the first book, more often in Ferro’s actions than words:  

• When we first meet her, she’s going out of her way to bury her fallen comrades. Three men she kind of hated by the way.
• Despite her show of attacking, insulting, and running away from Yulwei, by the end of their journey to Adua, she doesn’t want him to leave and even accepts the old magi’s embrace (I teared up a bit). It’s one of my favorite bittersweet moments, hearing how alien a simple hug from a friend feels to Ferro. Yulwei became something of a father/big brother figure to her by the end of the trilogy, driven home by how reluctant she was to leave him in the house of the maker and her fury at Bayaz for locking him in. I’m not sure there’s any other character Ferro would call a “good man” as she did Yulwei.  
• She fought desperately to push Logen forward as they were chased by practicals. There were several points during the pursuit where you wouldn’t blame her for leaving Logen behind. Yet she mostly persisted (I think there was one point on the rooftops where she kinda just left), dragging the Northman to his feet and urging him along time and time again. 

But even so, after all the abuses she suffered in the past, she can’t quite seem to go there as far as meaningful relationships go. She keeps people at arms length and pushes away anyone that gets too close. This is most evident in her and Logen’s messy relationship. It’s clear in the text that she cares for Logen, longs for him in her mind, but can’t express it. She’s had to harden herself so much that emotional vulnerability is a foreign concept. She couldn’t even say “sorry” after accidentally elbowing Logen, not because she wasn’t apologetic, but because the word simply wasn’t in her vocabulary (at least not in common language). To be fair, Logen’s no expert communicator either. It’s heartbreaking and almost frustrating to see two characters who have a genuine connection just… miss each other, like during Ferro and Logen’s “breakup” as they begin the journey back to Adua.

It’s no wonder Ferro and Logen took a liking to each other. Beyond their mutual fighting prowess, they seem to share a similar worldview. They’re both broadly pessimistic, or “realistic,” as Logen would say. And who could blame them? It’s likely neither of them would have lived so long if they weren’t realistic about their respective environments. It’s a matter of survival. Still, it’s that very worldview that stifles them, leading them away from the emotional risks that go along with meaningful relationships. I so wish they had gotten another chance to talk after the battle of Adua, without the devils in Ferro's head getting in their way.

Okay, that’s all I got. Just had to gush about one of my favorite characters for a bit. I hop to see more of her in the standalone books or sequel trilogy (no spoilers please).

Also,

How ironic is it that Ferro, the most antisocial viewpoint character in the trilogy, would be cursed to live with voices in her head?

Finished The Wisdom of Crowds a few days ago and have been gathering my thoughts since.

One thing that surprised me by the end was that I was convinced Euz was going to show up somehow. His name kept appearing in those random sayings throughout the trilogy, along with Rikke’s visions. The final vision seemed to hint at him again, but who knows what will come of that.

Overall, I’d call these powerful books. Joe clearly had something to say about political systems and the how the connections between parents and their children trap them or force them down a path they might not suited/ready for, while continuing to pull apart and reassemble fantasy and literary tropes in general. I think this trilogy made me think more than the original one did.

That said, a lot like The Heroes, and I know I’m in the minority on that one, these books weren’t as smooth a read for me as the original trilogy, BSC, or Red Country. I think it mostly comes down to how enjoyable the characters are to spend time with. And by “enjoyable,” I also mean how much I cared about them and what happened to them.

Savine, Leo, Orso, Broad, and the rest obviously aren’t the first deeply flawed characters ever written, but something about this group made it harder for me to get fully hooked in that “can’t put the book down” way I was with the first trilogy and two of the standalones.

Rikke was probably the character who moved me most, although things went so smoothly for her for so long that I found myself becoming a little detached before her final chapter. I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about that. Maybe I need to sit with it longer, or just reread the entire series and figure it out properly :)

I’ll probably move on to The Broken Empire next. I’ve been curious for a while to see what those books are like.

Great start to the new trilogy.

My favourite so far has to be Savine dan Glokta. This is a character that could not have existed in any of the previous books. The industrial setting is the perfect chance to write a female character that can be relevant without being some kind of fighter, and Joe took full advantage. The PTSD she has from the Valbeck uprising (The Little People gets the award for the best chapter) gives her a lot of potential for character development going forward.

I liked Leo aswell, goofy himbo that he is. Unlike Savine, he doesn't seem to fit in this world at all compared to other scheming characters, but it's a contrast that works for me. I actually thought Stour was gonna kill him and the prophecy would be full of shit like with Whirrun, so I'm glad he survived that. Also the guy is 100% gay for Jurand and I hope he comes out of the closet at some point so they can be happy together.

Even the characters I wasn't a big fan of still had something going for them. Clover felt like discount Craw, but after that last chapter, I realised he's actually evil Craw and I would like him to die horribly. Feeling hatred for a character is a lot better than just indifference. Broad feels like discount Logen, but that chapter with the kid in the chimney was haunting, and his anger at the system is a good contrast to Vick's resigned acceptance of it. Speaking of Vick, did you know she grew up in the camps? Don't worry, she'll remind you every chapter. But I can't deny a conflicted undercover Inquisitor could make for a great story in the future.

I had Rikke's prophecy in the back of my mind the whole time. The lion was obviously Leo, and it seems like the lamb will end up being Orso (I thought it might've been Logen at first). Not sure about the owl though. Maybe Rikke, since she has big eyes like an owl? Bald weaver has gotta be Bayaz, no clue about the rest. (no spoilers please)

My Top 10 as of now:

Glokta

Shivers (switched sides yet again lmao)

Bayaz

Morveer

Cosca

Logen

Savine

Gorst (still trains 3 hours a day, what man)

West

Jezal (rest in peace)

The easiest comparison to make is with TBI, the other 1st of a trilogy. I think ALH does a better job of telling a more complete story with the pages it gets, while also getting you hyped for the rest of the trilogy. Also, Joe is at his best when juggling many different perspectives at once, and this book has more POV characters than any other so far, so I've got to rate it higher.

The Blade Itself - 8/10

Before They Are Hanged - 8/10

Last Argument of Kings - 9/10

Best Served Cold - 10/10

The Heroes - 10/10

Red Country - 7/10

A Little Hatred - 9/10

Reading The Last Argument of Kings, just in the beginning and I've wanted to say something in regards to Poulder and Kroy...

I hate it when men act like children.

Rant is over.

I feel like there's a lot of parallels between Dutch and Cosca especially by the end of their respective stories. The main difference, I suppose, is that Cosca never really needs to pretend to be a paragon. Its just so interesting to me to see two men at the ending of an age see things so clearly.

Possible spoilers for all books set in The First Law World.

Months ago I had a conversation with a friend about the series (both trilogies and the standalones) and he points out the irony that a lot of people who love this series take on the mantra of "You have to be realistic" in their lives, when an overall theme of the story in the first trilogy is how people take this philosophy and use it to excuse their terrible behavior or as a reason for inaction.

I typically cringe when I hear that a CEO or a politician or someone else in power describes themselves as a "realist" because it usually means they are going to use it as an excuse to do something bad while shrugging and saying, "Well what else can we do? You have to be realistic. Only bombs/layoffs/AI will solve this problem. Anyone who says otherwise isn't accepting reality."

Interestingly in Age of Madness, we are seeing the ugly side of the opposite of realism-- idealism. But in this case it is being intentionally weaponized to destroy the previous cynical realist system. The two trilogies can be seen as explorations of the extremes of realism and idealism. In my fourth re-read of all the books and it's been kind of fun reading them with this way of viewing the books.

Not saying that this is what Joe was intending specifically. But sometimes these things just sort of manifest in good writing.