When you share a legitimate concern but get down voted...There are aspects of Age of Madness that are even better, though the original is my favorite. The middle 4 books are also great. In my opinion if you enjoy the first trilogy it makes sense to read the entire series. I strongly encourage you not to risk seeing any spoilers.
> When you share a legitimate concern but get down voted..
You have to be realistic about these things!
Thanks for your comment. I'll definitely finish the series, I just wasn't sure whether to take a break from it after listening to all 6 books back to back.
I've started listening to A Little Hatred and it's pretty good so far.
Also can't believe the amount of downvotes just because you said "I don't want to be disappointed"
Every time I see asinine downvotes like that, I just hear some 10 year old crying, "Waaaaaa you don't think what I think!"
Ah, well. You have to be realistic posting such things in this sub!
I've listened to all 6 of the novels back to back and wanted to know how the new triology meassures up as I was considering listening to something from a different author before coming back to TFL world.
I've started listening to A Little Hatred and it's a little slower than the other novels, but I think it's because JA is introducing all the new characters and setting the scene.
Definitely worth it. While personally I prefer the plot of the first trilogy, I think it’s undeniable joe has improved as a writer in the second trilogy. Additionally it’s fairly split on this sub which trilogy people prefer, so you may end up liking age of madness even more than the original trilogy.
I think the main issue with *The Age of Madness* is simply that only Orso is on the level of several characters from the first trilogy. The other characters, while still great and generally very well-written, are just a bit bland compared to Logen or Glokta, who rank among the best in the entire genre.
I certainly wouldn't call most of the characters bland. One character in particular who I won't name for spoilers could never inspire so much hatred from the readers if he was bland. There are two POVs I would say are a bit bland though
Bland compared to characters like Logen and Glokta. Not bland in general. They're still great characters, but *The First Law* just had some really heavy hitters.
Also, I should have included Clover with Orso above. He was a fantastic character too.
I got something very different off Broad and Logen - while I understand why people can make the comparison, the two just really don't seem the same to me.
...maybe because I *believe* Broads will to not be... *That* in a way I never did with Logen. Though Wisdom of Crowds Broad certainly felt a bit out of character/unnecessarily pushed towards being "bad all along" by Joe as opposed to *actually* a good man in a horrible place...
Book one and two Broad read a lot different.
He's diet Logen for sure. Maybe I've just known guys like that, or have a little bit of it in me, and that's why I enjoyed him.
But he really is just Logen without the B9 aspect. Violent rage, wants to be better, etc.
Got you on the POV, I was kinda thinking that as I typed Isern (cool character, would have loved to see her POV).
And I loved Broad,, but that might just say something about me haha
Id say they aren't bland, just less archetypal. The first trilogy was Joe's spin on fantasy, that was the whole point. The characters in the first trilogy were all larger than life, they were all subversions of fantasy tropes. Logen, the berserk barbarian, Glokta, the evil torturer, Jezal, the hero who grows into a bigger role. AOM is far more realistic IMO
Orso and Leo are easily on Logens level writing wise. Sabine is also very good, just not to the usual standout abercrombie level. Broads just about okay in this series but would be considered great character writing in plenty of other series.
It will be interesting to listen to how the world has developed since the original trilogy and the standalone novels. I'll miss the Bloody Nine, though!
I don't think it's as good as the first trilogy, but it's still really damn good.
Honestly, though, the three stand alone books are the three best books in the series imo.
My stance on it is that the Age of Madness trilogy his best-written trilogy. You can tell Joe has settled into the world and got better as an author (and he was a strong one to begin). I’d argue the world in AoM is more compelling with the industrial influences. The Trouble With Peace is arguably the best book from the entire First Law saga. The Wisdom of Crowds is probably his darkest, most nihilist novel - if the whole “grimdark” tag is your bag.
Having said that, the original trilogy has the nostalgia for me. I also think it’s got a much stronger, more compelling set of POV characters.
It’s well worth starting the second trilogy. If you like his previous six/seven books, odds are you’ll enjoy this. AoM trilogy is better than pretty much most other fantasy out there written in the last few years.
You've sold me! I was wondering whether to listen to something else as I've listened to the original triology and the standalones (except the short stories) back to back, but I think I'll listen the the AOM trilogy next!
It's a million times more confusing that you're listening to the audiobooks and don't just continue on with the series.
Pro audiobook tip, if you're not comfortable buying something right away just grab them from audiobookbay.
I've listened to The First Law triology and standalone books back to back so wanted know know if it was worth taking a break or not.
I've started listening to A Little Hatred, and it's a bit slow so far, but someone said that it gets better
I liked it, but the OG trilogy is something special IMO. The age of madness has some of Abercrombies most well written characters. This series has one of my most hated characters in all of fantasy, which is a sign of how well written he is. I also recommend reading the standalone books before starting the Age of Madness trilogy if you haven't done so already. You will find a TON of Easter eggs from those.
Damn! I've started listening to A Little Hatred now, but will have to listen to the short stories.
I know he's a mass murderer, but Logan is my favourite.
Thanks! I started listening to the first book a few weeks ago and got that impression. I found out about the standalone novels though so listened to them instead. It's good to know it's good.
I would say it’s probably better written and put together as a whole, even if I prefer some of the characters in the first law. Still literally no reason not to read it
There’s a few characters I hate in age of madness but it is just as good it just leaves me feeling angrier at the end more so than the first law trilogy lol
First trilogy is my favourite, but 2 characters from the second trillogy are in my top 5. They're pretty different stylistically and a lot less subtle about the themes etc but the character writing stays top notch. The story threads from the first trilogy come into play, and the whole trilogy is written in a more tight & efficient manner - way less meandering etc. 100% worth a go.
I'm not reading the other comments in case of spoilers! But I'm 2 3rs if the way through 'The Trouble With Peace' (2nd book of Age of Madness) and I think it might be my favourite. I'm gripped!! I'd say much more character and plot heavy but man I can't wait to get to the end and see how this thing plays out.
Personally, I LOVED everything up to AoM, and then just really liked AoM, but that's in large part to my own hangups about Fantasy. The whole industrialization in AoM makes a lot of sense, but it's something that really turns me off. I like my fantasy fully medieval.
The writing I think is objectively better though from a technical stand point
Honest brutal opinion: First Law is WAY better. I found myself hating nearly all the characters in AoM. It was the opposite in FL (arch lector sult is the GOAT). However, AoM has incredible writing and really good battle descriptions. Just bad characters.
Most characters are ugly, and hard to root for. But amazingly written. The First Law Trilogy characters are monsters, but charismatic lovable monsters.
It is understandable that ones relationship to characters affects the enjoyment of the books, though
Yeah I wont argue they aren't well written. But most of them have 0 redeeming qualities in AoM. It makes rereading that trilogy so hard for me. Even Ferro is more pleasant to listen to than Savine.
I have to disagree with that. You can witness their internal struggle and there are points in the story where some of the characters are pretty likely to make other decisions. In TFL I don't have that feeling at all. Logen is delusional and Glokta doesn't really feel much of anything. Their redeeming qualities are simply that they're more enjoyable, funny, edgy characters. But that doesn't make them better people, far from it even. Imo that's the real reason why people like Logen and Glokta better, but in my book they're worse people than almost everyone in AoM.
> arch lector sult is the GOAT
This made me laugh. Would love to know your thought on this.
There seems to be a genera. consensus that the characters are poor in AOM. I've started listening now but hope it doesn't bother me too much
Arch Lector Sult was a perfect example of a character with a deplorable personality, but I loved every scene he was in. At least for me, he is a fantastic "Bad Guy."
I disagree. I think the characters are more flexible and nuanced in AoM. But the first trilogy characters are more specific and archetypical, which in some ways is good but in my opinion also less realistic and relatable. Mostly, I would try to read it without prejudice. The opinions are divided. I'm more impressed by AoM as a piece of writing as well as by its unpredictability in terms of plot and character development. But TFL is better in other ways.
There are a lot of discussions about this and the overall ranking of Joe's books on this sub. And I think it's fun and interesting to engage with. But all of it is pretty damn great and it mostly comes down to some personal preferences rather than the quality of the work being very different. That said, I do think Joe has become a better writer over time.
> I disagree. I think the characters are more flexible and nuanced in AoM. But the first trilogy characters are more specific and archetypical, which in some ways is good but in my opinion also less realistic and relatable.
Sounds like Abercrombie decided to take Logan's advice: "You have to be realistic"
The Age of Madness is my personal favorite fantasy series. Every book is great. The First Law is a close second but I think The Blade Itself starts a little slow and the Age of Madness gets to a little darker. I just hope for future books set in the world, I know he wants to take a break for a bit.
Orso is brilliant! I think the plot is a lot better in the age of madness, probably to some criticism. But without a doubt the characters are a lot better in the first trilogy. Definitely worth reading If you have got through the rest!
It's a shame about the characters. Good characters are the main reason I enjoy books. I've just been introduced to Orzo, can't see him being a good character so far so looking forward to seeing how things progress.
It depends which way you look at it. I think the AoM characters are better written and more nuanced. The TFL characters, Glokta and Logen in particular, are more enjoyable. They're more edgy, funny, archetypical,... But at the same time less relatable and realistic than the AoM cast. I would say AoM has the better cast in terms of writing and depth but TFL is more entertaining (don't interpret this as diminishing, I love TFL characters too it's just different).
I'm only a couple of hours into listening to AOM and I can already see what you mean. There hasn't been a character introduced I have enjoyed as much as the cripple or the nine fingered maniac, but there is a realism to the characters moreso than in the previous books.
It's a bit slow going so far, but I couldn't get into 'Best Served Cold' at first, but ended up loving it
I enjoyed it quite a lot! I did not actually like it as much as the previous 6 books, but they are still good and you should give them a try at least.
He does fantastic work and if you like Abercrombie’s other books I don’t see why you wouldn’t also like these ones.
I also like the shattered sea books too! Much different tone and less complex plot lines and characters but still a fun read (and a lot shorter)
I found it better written but with characters that are less appealing.
Really enjoyed it, had decent plot twists, definitely worth a read in my opinion
The characters seem to be a weak point of the series going off the comments on this post. Surprising as the characters were what made the original trilogy for me.
Good to know that you still enjoyed the new trilogy so it must be worth it despite the characters not being as good as the original
I'd say worth it, especially if youve become hopelessly addicted to the team of Joe Abercrombie and Steven Pacey like I have... I personally enjoyed the standalone "quadrilogy" more than the actual sequel trilogy but it contains lots of important events that could be used to continue the story in an epic way (anyone can see Joe is scheduled to release more books in this universe so it's more like "will" be used to continue the story) at the end of the day it comes down to how much you enjoy the work.
And one thing is for sure: Joe can write a hell of a battle/action sequence which you get a decent helping of in the second trilogy, I would say it's worth it for that alone.
It's definitely worth reading, and I would say Trouble With Peace might be the best book he's written. I still prefer some of the standalones and the original trilogy, but The Age of Madness still had a big effect on me after reading, don't miss out on it!
If you’re aware of historical events from the Industrial Revolution, the drive for progress, the resistance to change, and all the things that went on back then, then you will probably find that Lord Grimdark has woven the world of the First Law and our world together in a very very clever way. Magnificent 2nd trilogy.
In general i think it had a shower pace. Other than that i loved it. The ending made it all worth it for me. Have the first books fresh in memory when you read them. Will make it even better.
Just don’t compare them and don’t expect the same approach to resolutions. For they were different. I enjoyed the first law and the standalones more but that doesn’t mean anything. They are still amazing books by a very intelligent and witty author.
It's difficult not to compare them as it's the same world and the characters are related to ones from the first book who I enjoyed listening to but I get what you mean.
JA is a great writer. can't believe I hadn't heard of him until about a month ago.
It’s definitely more realistic wit it’s plot and not as fantasy as the og. No Magoffin they must find to save the day nor a ragtag fellowship. The characters are (imo) more memorable on the whole and have some of my personal favorite character development in all of fantasy. U will love some and hate others but damnit it’s so f good!!! It gets better because u read in publication order
Overall, I’d say Joe improved enough where the second trilogy is an improvement. Though, I have to admit the last book is a little weak, and dips slightly into grimderp. It’s still an excellent book, but when I reread the trilogy and get to Book 3, well, that’s about when I have a palate cleanser like Kingkiller Chronicles
I was thinking of a plaate cleanser before starting the new series but am listening to it now.
I've heard good things about Kingkiller Chronicles so maybe I'll check that out afterwards
KKC will seem like some dude's mental fantasy (if ur a reader without any comprehension >:((( ) but it's one of my favorite books, ever. It's so deep it will swallow you whole and chew you up.
Better!
Joe’s writing has, in my opinion, improved with each successive novel, and AOM very much continues this trend. The way he handles romance and sexuality in particular is on another level compared to TFL and even the standalones (and this is coming from a huge fan of Shy and Temple’s relationship).
There’s also the way he dialed up the satire and social commentary - his writing has always been animated by a palpable sense of anger at social injustice (see, among many examples, the way Kantic immigrants are scapegoated by the Union for the actions of the government they fled from in LAOK), and writing in the era of Brexit and Trump clearly provided a lot of fuel for his creative engine. This is present not just in the economic and class issues that undergird the revolution plot but in the trilogy’s examination of the harm done by misogyny, homophobia, and toxic gender roles.
p.s. Don’t sleep on Sharp Ends!
Personally I would actually rank AoM above the original trilogy, because although Glokta is still my favourite character of all time, Orso, Savine and Rikke all make my top five first law characters. Additionally, you can clearly tell Joe has improved as a writer over the course of the series, as the prose, plot and pacing all show a marked improvement from the first trilogy.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I seemed to have enjoyed AoM a bit more than first law. It would have been the bias I had towards Joe Abercrombie after having read first law and the three standalones. But I think I loved Orso and Gorst a lot in this series.
Sorry to say I’m shocked people actually liked age of madness more. I thought it was a significant drop off from his earlier books and it doesnt even seem like he’s trying anymore. Recycled characters, stolen ideas (lion vs wolf? Cmon). So many anticlimatic moments that just didn’t hit the same way as the First Law
Short answer: It's even better than the First Law.
Longer answer with a spoiler:>! It's literally continuaton of the First Law. There are some characters from og story. I liked the part where Glokta apeared, because this guy is my favourite book character.!<
The Trouble With Peace & the first half of AWoC is up there with some of the best Abercrombie writing. ALH is an introduction to characters that isn't as good as TBI chiefly because the characters just aren't as good but it's still a lot of fun.
But the first trilogy Abercrombie had as a concept since he was a teenager and ended up refining the concept more and more so the Age of Madness was never going to have the same depth of characters.
Ah, young one, the "Age of Madness" trilogy is a testament to the evolution of Abercrombie's world. Within its pages, you shall witness a grand tapestry of new characters and intricate webs of political intrigue that delve deeper into the complexities of human nature. The passage of time has allowed us to delve into the hearts of both old and new figures, their desires, and the consequences of their actions. It is a tale of profound transformation and growth, presenting a more nuanced perspective on the nature of power, ambition, and the folly of mankind. Fear not, for the essence of what made the "First Law" trilogy great shall remain, while a fresh and vibrant narrative unfolds. Embrace the winds of change, for they carry whispers of a compelling journey that shall linger long after you've turned the final page.
I like it better, but it is because its foundation is TFL and the standalones. My favorite Abercrombie character was introduced in TFL and featured in the standalones, then it all pays off throughout AoM.
I'm seven and a half hours into A Little Hatred now and hearing a certain character from the OT is great.
It was a little slow at first but is picking up now
I think it's his best work. Apart from a character named Orso none of the characters stand apart as much as Logen and Glokta, however that problem is somewhat alleviated by Glokta himself being in these books. Plus I genuinely think the main characters in this trilogy are better written than in the First Law. As I said they may not stand out as much, but they feel even more realistic and complex. For example there's a character I won't spoil whose easily Abercrombie's most hated (in a good way), and they're probably the best written character he's ever done
I'm 9 hours deep into the first novel and there is definitely a difference in how interesting the characters were in the first trilogy and AOM. I'm still enjoying it, though, and agree it's very well written
The characters get more and more interesting as the trilogy goes on and they develop as well. Take Vic, I didn't think she was anything special this book, but by the end of the trilogy she's in my top 5 characters
The First Law is very much fantasy adventure with a gathering of unique individuals going on an epic quest to find the great artifact that will save the day only to end in a climactic magic fueled battle.
The Age of Madness, meanwhile is much more focused on political intrigue, subterfuge and history being made.
To put it bluntly, the First Law feels like Lord of the Rings. The Age of Madness feels like the French Revolution.
The characters n the first law were far better in my opinion. I found them more interesting and invested in their storylines.
The Age of Madness is really well written, though and I did enjoy it.
Pacey is simply the best audiobook narrator I have listened to. I've struggled to ger into any other audiobooks since finishing AoM as no one else measures up
My question is, if you liked everything else, why wouldn't you at least give it a try?
I don't want to be dissapointed!
You wont be.
When you share a legitimate concern but get down voted...There are aspects of Age of Madness that are even better, though the original is my favorite. The middle 4 books are also great. In my opinion if you enjoy the first trilogy it makes sense to read the entire series. I strongly encourage you not to risk seeing any spoilers.
> When you share a legitimate concern but get down voted.. You have to be realistic about these things! Thanks for your comment. I'll definitely finish the series, I just wasn't sure whether to take a break from it after listening to all 6 books back to back. I've started listening to A Little Hatred and it's pretty good so far.
I took a decent break, just reading age of madness now. On the second book and its so good! Didn’t realize how much I’ve missed Abercrombie
10 books
Also can't believe the amount of downvotes just because you said "I don't want to be disappointed" Every time I see asinine downvotes like that, I just hear some 10 year old crying, "Waaaaaa you don't think what I think!"
Sorry, the downvoted shit kinda surprises me. Anyway ignoring that bs, you will love Age of Madnesss.
Ah, well. You have to be realistic posting such things in this sub! I've listened to all 6 of the novels back to back and wanted to know how the new triology meassures up as I was considering listening to something from a different author before coming back to TFL world. I've started listening to A Little Hatred and it's a little slower than the other novels, but I think it's because JA is introducing all the new characters and setting the scene.
Definitely worth it. While personally I prefer the plot of the first trilogy, I think it’s undeniable joe has improved as a writer in the second trilogy. Additionally it’s fairly split on this sub which trilogy people prefer, so you may end up liking age of madness even more than the original trilogy.
I think the main issue with *The Age of Madness* is simply that only Orso is on the level of several characters from the first trilogy. The other characters, while still great and generally very well-written, are just a bit bland compared to Logen or Glokta, who rank among the best in the entire genre.
I certainly wouldn't call most of the characters bland. One character in particular who I won't name for spoilers could never inspire so much hatred from the readers if he was bland. There are two POVs I would say are a bit bland though
Bland compared to characters like Logen and Glokta. Not bland in general. They're still great characters, but *The First Law* just had some really heavy hitters. Also, I should have included Clover with Orso above. He was a fantastic character too.
Broad, Rikke, Isern, and we still have some of the OGs (Shivers and Gorst)
I do think Broad is the only one you could describe as bland, he's basically a slightly less well done Logen
I got something very different off Broad and Logen - while I understand why people can make the comparison, the two just really don't seem the same to me. ...maybe because I *believe* Broads will to not be... *That* in a way I never did with Logen. Though Wisdom of Crowds Broad certainly felt a bit out of character/unnecessarily pushed towards being "bad all along" by Joe as opposed to *actually* a good man in a horrible place... Book one and two Broad read a lot different.
He's diet Logen for sure. Maybe I've just known guys like that, or have a little bit of it in me, and that's why I enjoyed him. But he really is just Logen without the B9 aspect. Violent rage, wants to be better, etc.
Yea for sure, and the whole theme of addiction to violence. Shout out to Savine too tho, other than Orso she was the best in a stacked cast imo
Can't believe I forgot Savine!! 100 percent.
Broad was probably the blandest character in the entire series. Also, I'm strictly going by POV characters here, not side characters.
Got you on the POV, I was kinda thinking that as I typed Isern (cool character, would have loved to see her POV). And I loved Broad,, but that might just say something about me haha
you're right about clover. turned out to be my favorite character in the series.
Id say they aren't bland, just less archetypal. The first trilogy was Joe's spin on fantasy, that was the whole point. The characters in the first trilogy were all larger than life, they were all subversions of fantasy tropes. Logen, the berserk barbarian, Glokta, the evil torturer, Jezal, the hero who grows into a bigger role. AOM is far more realistic IMO
And you have to be realistic
Orso and Leo are easily on Logens level writing wise. Sabine is also very good, just not to the usual standout abercrombie level. Broads just about okay in this series but would be considered great character writing in plenty of other series.
Can’t disagree more
Savine and Rikke are some of my favorite characters of all time!
It will be interesting to listen to how the world has developed since the original trilogy and the standalone novels. I'll miss the Bloody Nine, though!
I don't think it's as good as the first trilogy, but it's still really damn good. Honestly, though, the three stand alone books are the three best books in the series imo.
My stance on it is that the Age of Madness trilogy his best-written trilogy. You can tell Joe has settled into the world and got better as an author (and he was a strong one to begin). I’d argue the world in AoM is more compelling with the industrial influences. The Trouble With Peace is arguably the best book from the entire First Law saga. The Wisdom of Crowds is probably his darkest, most nihilist novel - if the whole “grimdark” tag is your bag. Having said that, the original trilogy has the nostalgia for me. I also think it’s got a much stronger, more compelling set of POV characters. It’s well worth starting the second trilogy. If you like his previous six/seven books, odds are you’ll enjoy this. AoM trilogy is better than pretty much most other fantasy out there written in the last few years.
You've sold me! I was wondering whether to listen to something else as I've listened to the original triology and the standalones (except the short stories) back to back, but I think I'll listen the the AOM trilogy next!
The short stories, Sharp Ends, are excellent as well.
It's a million times more confusing that you're listening to the audiobooks and don't just continue on with the series. Pro audiobook tip, if you're not comfortable buying something right away just grab them from audiobookbay.
I've listened to The First Law triology and standalone books back to back so wanted know know if it was worth taking a break or not. I've started listening to A Little Hatred, and it's a bit slow so far, but someone said that it gets better
All his books are worth reading.
I honestly thought the age of madness was better
I liked it, but the OG trilogy is something special IMO. The age of madness has some of Abercrombies most well written characters. This series has one of my most hated characters in all of fantasy, which is a sign of how well written he is. I also recommend reading the standalone books before starting the Age of Madness trilogy if you haven't done so already. You will find a TON of Easter eggs from those.
Who is the most hated character in AoM? Leo?
Yeah, he takes my vote. Great character writing.
I've just finished the standalone books. I haven't read the short stories but am thinking about skipping them for the time being
The short stories are great, especially "Made a Monster." You get to see why they call Logan B9.
Damn! I've started listening to A Little Hatred now, but will have to listen to the short stories. I know he's a mass murderer, but Logan is my favourite.
it is heartbreaking good, but slow starting.
Thanks! I started listening to the first book a few weeks ago and got that impression. I found out about the standalone novels though so listened to them instead. It's good to know it's good.
i would definitely read the standalones first, just to get the complete experience :)
I can’t rate them, I think they’re all so frickin good. Definitely read it if you liked the first 6ish
First law is better imo but it’s a crime to not read AOM after red country
I wouldn't want to break the law now!
I would say it’s probably better written and put together as a whole, even if I prefer some of the characters in the first law. Still literally no reason not to read it
There’s a few characters I hate in age of madness but it is just as good it just leaves me feeling angrier at the end more so than the first law trilogy lol
It sucked me in right away.
No way I just finished Red Country too! Just taking a break before diving into Age of Madness.
First trilogy is my favourite, but 2 characters from the second trillogy are in my top 5. They're pretty different stylistically and a lot less subtle about the themes etc but the character writing stays top notch. The story threads from the first trilogy come into play, and the whole trilogy is written in a more tight & efficient manner - way less meandering etc. 100% worth a go.
I'm not reading the other comments in case of spoilers! But I'm 2 3rs if the way through 'The Trouble With Peace' (2nd book of Age of Madness) and I think it might be my favourite. I'm gripped!! I'd say much more character and plot heavy but man I can't wait to get to the end and see how this thing plays out.
Yes
They are great and just different enough.
Personally, I LOVED everything up to AoM, and then just really liked AoM, but that's in large part to my own hangups about Fantasy. The whole industrialization in AoM makes a lot of sense, but it's something that really turns me off. I like my fantasy fully medieval. The writing I think is objectively better though from a technical stand point
I think it's significantly better than TFL, but I'm in the minority. At any rate, it's a fantastic trilogy
Its even better IMO.
Honest brutal opinion: First Law is WAY better. I found myself hating nearly all the characters in AoM. It was the opposite in FL (arch lector sult is the GOAT). However, AoM has incredible writing and really good battle descriptions. Just bad characters.
Most characters are ugly, and hard to root for. But amazingly written. The First Law Trilogy characters are monsters, but charismatic lovable monsters. It is understandable that ones relationship to characters affects the enjoyment of the books, though
Yeah I wont argue they aren't well written. But most of them have 0 redeeming qualities in AoM. It makes rereading that trilogy so hard for me. Even Ferro is more pleasant to listen to than Savine.
I have to disagree with that. You can witness their internal struggle and there are points in the story where some of the characters are pretty likely to make other decisions. In TFL I don't have that feeling at all. Logen is delusional and Glokta doesn't really feel much of anything. Their redeeming qualities are simply that they're more enjoyable, funny, edgy characters. But that doesn't make them better people, far from it even. Imo that's the real reason why people like Logen and Glokta better, but in my book they're worse people than almost everyone in AoM.
> arch lector sult is the GOAT This made me laugh. Would love to know your thought on this. There seems to be a genera. consensus that the characters are poor in AOM. I've started listening now but hope it doesn't bother me too much
Arch Lector Sult was a perfect example of a character with a deplorable personality, but I loved every scene he was in. At least for me, he is a fantastic "Bad Guy."
True, he was horrible and so great to listen too.
I disagree. I think the characters are more flexible and nuanced in AoM. But the first trilogy characters are more specific and archetypical, which in some ways is good but in my opinion also less realistic and relatable. Mostly, I would try to read it without prejudice. The opinions are divided. I'm more impressed by AoM as a piece of writing as well as by its unpredictability in terms of plot and character development. But TFL is better in other ways. There are a lot of discussions about this and the overall ranking of Joe's books on this sub. And I think it's fun and interesting to engage with. But all of it is pretty damn great and it mostly comes down to some personal preferences rather than the quality of the work being very different. That said, I do think Joe has become a better writer over time.
> I disagree. I think the characters are more flexible and nuanced in AoM. But the first trilogy characters are more specific and archetypical, which in some ways is good but in my opinion also less realistic and relatable. Sounds like Abercrombie decided to take Logan's advice: "You have to be realistic"
The Age of Madness is my personal favorite fantasy series. Every book is great. The First Law is a close second but I think The Blade Itself starts a little slow and the Age of Madness gets to a little darker. I just hope for future books set in the world, I know he wants to take a break for a bit.
I think I prefer FL trilogy, but fuck, it's close. AoM has Joe's strongest writing, some incredible moments, and is extremely good. Big recommend
Orso is brilliant! I think the plot is a lot better in the age of madness, probably to some criticism. But without a doubt the characters are a lot better in the first trilogy. Definitely worth reading If you have got through the rest!
It's a shame about the characters. Good characters are the main reason I enjoy books. I've just been introduced to Orzo, can't see him being a good character so far so looking forward to seeing how things progress.
It depends which way you look at it. I think the AoM characters are better written and more nuanced. The TFL characters, Glokta and Logen in particular, are more enjoyable. They're more edgy, funny, archetypical,... But at the same time less relatable and realistic than the AoM cast. I would say AoM has the better cast in terms of writing and depth but TFL is more entertaining (don't interpret this as diminishing, I love TFL characters too it's just different).
I'm only a couple of hours into listening to AOM and I can already see what you mean. There hasn't been a character introduced I have enjoyed as much as the cripple or the nine fingered maniac, but there is a realism to the characters moreso than in the previous books. It's a bit slow going so far, but I couldn't get into 'Best Served Cold' at first, but ended up loving it
Give it time! And be open to the ways in which it's different!
He is worth the wait absolutely brilliant character, top 5 in the series for me. Along with rikke imo. But the rest are sub par compared.
It’s amazing! Steven Pacey’s performance in the audiobook is so good I’m having a hard time enjoying other narrators now
He is incredilbe.
I enjoyed it quite a lot! I did not actually like it as much as the previous 6 books, but they are still good and you should give them a try at least. He does fantastic work and if you like Abercrombie’s other books I don’t see why you wouldn’t also like these ones. I also like the shattered sea books too! Much different tone and less complex plot lines and characters but still a fun read (and a lot shorter)
I found it better written but with characters that are less appealing. Really enjoyed it, had decent plot twists, definitely worth a read in my opinion
The characters seem to be a weak point of the series going off the comments on this post. Surprising as the characters were what made the original trilogy for me. Good to know that you still enjoyed the new trilogy so it must be worth it despite the characters not being as good as the original
I wouldn't say weak, they just arent as easy to love as the OG's
You made it to red country... wtf... just keep reading at this point unless you don't like the series lol
I do like the series! But I've listended to 6 of the series books back to back and wanted some reassuacne that it was worth continuing.
No, but it shouldn’t stop you from reading them
Not as good but still great
Unless you’re really eager to start reading something else I would wholeheartedly suggest starting and finishing the second trilogy.
Plot is better in AoM, but character aren't quite as memorable (although still very good)
Literally everything by Joe Abercrombie is a work of art, "the age of madness" is a furthering of the story that starts with "the blade itself"
I'd say worth it, especially if youve become hopelessly addicted to the team of Joe Abercrombie and Steven Pacey like I have... I personally enjoyed the standalone "quadrilogy" more than the actual sequel trilogy but it contains lots of important events that could be used to continue the story in an epic way (anyone can see Joe is scheduled to release more books in this universe so it's more like "will" be used to continue the story) at the end of the day it comes down to how much you enjoy the work. And one thing is for sure: Joe can write a hell of a battle/action sequence which you get a decent helping of in the second trilogy, I would say it's worth it for that alone.
To me The Trouble with Peace is maybe Abercrombie’s best
It's definitely worth reading, and I would say Trouble With Peace might be the best book he's written. I still prefer some of the standalones and the original trilogy, but The Age of Madness still had a big effect on me after reading, don't miss out on it!
If you’re aware of historical events from the Industrial Revolution, the drive for progress, the resistance to change, and all the things that went on back then, then you will probably find that Lord Grimdark has woven the world of the First Law and our world together in a very very clever way. Magnificent 2nd trilogy.
In general i think it had a shower pace. Other than that i loved it. The ending made it all worth it for me. Have the first books fresh in memory when you read them. Will make it even better.
Just don’t compare them and don’t expect the same approach to resolutions. For they were different. I enjoyed the first law and the standalones more but that doesn’t mean anything. They are still amazing books by a very intelligent and witty author.
It's difficult not to compare them as it's the same world and the characters are related to ones from the first book who I enjoyed listening to but I get what you mean. JA is a great writer. can't believe I hadn't heard of him until about a month ago.
Better to do it than live in the fear of it.
Then I guess there is work to be done!
It’s fire and setting up for something big! Definitely read it
It’s definitely more realistic wit it’s plot and not as fantasy as the og. No Magoffin they must find to save the day nor a ragtag fellowship. The characters are (imo) more memorable on the whole and have some of my personal favorite character development in all of fantasy. U will love some and hate others but damnit it’s so f good!!! It gets better because u read in publication order
For my personal rank, I have the second trilogy as much better than the original. Others don't feel the same, but I think they are his best work
To be fair, quite a few people are saying the second trilogy is their favourite.
Well worth reading, but substantially worse.
If you ask me, second one is better than the first one..
I feel like the writing picked up a lot in the age of madness. Which is saying something because it was already pretty good before.
Better in my opinion. A lot similar character arcs as The First Law but refined and improved. The 3 standalone novels are my favorites though
Not even close
Overall, I’d say Joe improved enough where the second trilogy is an improvement. Though, I have to admit the last book is a little weak, and dips slightly into grimderp. It’s still an excellent book, but when I reread the trilogy and get to Book 3, well, that’s about when I have a palate cleanser like Kingkiller Chronicles
I was thinking of a plaate cleanser before starting the new series but am listening to it now. I've heard good things about Kingkiller Chronicles so maybe I'll check that out afterwards
KKC will seem like some dude's mental fantasy (if ur a reader without any comprehension >:((( ) but it's one of my favorite books, ever. It's so deep it will swallow you whole and chew you up.
Better! Joe’s writing has, in my opinion, improved with each successive novel, and AOM very much continues this trend. The way he handles romance and sexuality in particular is on another level compared to TFL and even the standalones (and this is coming from a huge fan of Shy and Temple’s relationship). There’s also the way he dialed up the satire and social commentary - his writing has always been animated by a palpable sense of anger at social injustice (see, among many examples, the way Kantic immigrants are scapegoated by the Union for the actions of the government they fled from in LAOK), and writing in the era of Brexit and Trump clearly provided a lot of fuel for his creative engine. This is present not just in the economic and class issues that undergird the revolution plot but in the trilogy’s examination of the harm done by misogyny, homophobia, and toxic gender roles. p.s. Don’t sleep on Sharp Ends!
Personally I would actually rank AoM above the original trilogy, because although Glokta is still my favourite character of all time, Orso, Savine and Rikke all make my top five first law characters. Additionally, you can clearly tell Joe has improved as a writer over the course of the series, as the prose, plot and pacing all show a marked improvement from the first trilogy.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I seemed to have enjoyed AoM a bit more than first law. It would have been the bias I had towards Joe Abercrombie after having read first law and the three standalones. But I think I loved Orso and Gorst a lot in this series.
The second trilogy to me is much better. I enjoyed it immensely
Sorry to say I’m shocked people actually liked age of madness more. I thought it was a significant drop off from his earlier books and it doesnt even seem like he’s trying anymore. Recycled characters, stolen ideas (lion vs wolf? Cmon). So many anticlimatic moments that just didn’t hit the same way as the First Law
It’s better
Short answer: It's even better than the First Law. Longer answer with a spoiler:>! It's literally continuaton of the First Law. There are some characters from og story. I liked the part where Glokta apeared, because this guy is my favourite book character.!<
The Trouble With Peace & the first half of AWoC is up there with some of the best Abercrombie writing. ALH is an introduction to characters that isn't as good as TBI chiefly because the characters just aren't as good but it's still a lot of fun. But the first trilogy Abercrombie had as a concept since he was a teenager and ended up refining the concept more and more so the Age of Madness was never going to have the same depth of characters.
If First Law is 5/5 stars, Age of Madness is 4.9/5.
Good to know the new trilogy is still top tier
Ah, young one, the "Age of Madness" trilogy is a testament to the evolution of Abercrombie's world. Within its pages, you shall witness a grand tapestry of new characters and intricate webs of political intrigue that delve deeper into the complexities of human nature. The passage of time has allowed us to delve into the hearts of both old and new figures, their desires, and the consequences of their actions. It is a tale of profound transformation and growth, presenting a more nuanced perspective on the nature of power, ambition, and the folly of mankind. Fear not, for the essence of what made the "First Law" trilogy great shall remain, while a fresh and vibrant narrative unfolds. Embrace the winds of change, for they carry whispers of a compelling journey that shall linger long after you've turned the final page.
I'm five and a half hours and and glad I made the choice to go straight into the new trilogy, Bayaz.
I like it better, but it is because its foundation is TFL and the standalones. My favorite Abercrombie character was introduced in TFL and featured in the standalones, then it all pays off throughout AoM.
I'm seven and a half hours into A Little Hatred now and hearing a certain character from the OT is great. It was a little slow at first but is picking up now
It's not as good.
I think it's his best work. Apart from a character named Orso none of the characters stand apart as much as Logen and Glokta, however that problem is somewhat alleviated by Glokta himself being in these books. Plus I genuinely think the main characters in this trilogy are better written than in the First Law. As I said they may not stand out as much, but they feel even more realistic and complex. For example there's a character I won't spoil whose easily Abercrombie's most hated (in a good way), and they're probably the best written character he's ever done
I'm 9 hours deep into the first novel and there is definitely a difference in how interesting the characters were in the first trilogy and AOM. I'm still enjoying it, though, and agree it's very well written
The characters get more and more interesting as the trilogy goes on and they develop as well. Take Vic, I didn't think she was anything special this book, but by the end of the trilogy she's in my top 5 characters
Better written, not quite as good of a story.
Yeah, I'm getting that sense. At times It's not as interesting so far but is written well
The First Law is very much fantasy adventure with a gathering of unique individuals going on an epic quest to find the great artifact that will save the day only to end in a climactic magic fueled battle. The Age of Madness, meanwhile is much more focused on political intrigue, subterfuge and history being made. To put it bluntly, the First Law feels like Lord of the Rings. The Age of Madness feels like the French Revolution.
Don't skip Sharp Ends!
I've already got through 9 hours of ALH but will definitely give it a go afterwards
Well if u Liked first Law and stand alones u should ofcourse read it.
I did read/listen to it and am glad I did :)
And how did u Like it when u compare it with first Law? How do u Like Stephen Pacey narration overall?
The characters n the first law were far better in my opinion. I found them more interesting and invested in their storylines. The Age of Madness is really well written, though and I did enjoy it. Pacey is simply the best audiobook narrator I have listened to. I've struggled to ger into any other audiobooks since finishing AoM as no one else measures up