The Wisdom of Crowds by Joe Abercrombie [SPOILER THREAD]

[Veltigar]

On 9/9/2022 at 10:32 PM, Jaxom 1974 said:

 

Yeah. I recall him mentioning the idea of being the shield bearer a number of times...but to write the character that way...it almost makes it feel like there is another level of importance to him, a regular Chekov's "Sword" if you will...mind you, I didn't always agree with him, but Jonas was one of the better written characters for me.

 

I get that. When I reached that recollection of Clover, I went back to reread the duel between Fenris and Logen (some thing that I have often done, that whole exchange is probably still my favorite piece of Abercrombie) to see whether there was some random mention of a shield bearer with some identifiable trait who could then be Clover, but alas I did not find anything.

[Ser Not Appearing]

The fact that he was so unremarkable as to not be noticed means it was definitely Clover!

[Garlan the Gallant]

I like the idea that Clover was there but you didn’t know about him before this. It makes it seem like the world is bigger and we are only seeing a sliver of it. 

[A True Kaniggit]

Steven Pacey gets a 95% on the audiobooks for first law. 
 

He just messed up with Glotka’s inner musings. 

[Ser Not Appearing]

4 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Steven Pacey gets a 95% on the audiobooks for first law. 
 

He just messed up with Glotka’s inner musings. 

 

I tend to find his reading to be a perfect fit for the overall tone of the novels.

[A True Kaniggit]

On 1/28/2023 at 7:55 PM, Ser Not Appearing said:

 

I tend to find his reading to be a perfect fit for the overall tone of the novels.

His voices are amazing. 
 

It is the drop in volume for Glotka’s thoughts that lost him the 5 points. 
 

That was a needless irritation. 
 

Edit: And Bremer dan Gorst as well. I jist hit his first chapter in The Heroes.

[Gaston de Foix]

On 9/11/2022 at 5:41 PM, Garlan the Gallant said:

I like the idea that Clover was there but you didn’t know about him before this. It makes it seem like the world is bigger and we are only seeing a sliver of it. 

Eh, it felt a bit like a retcon to inflate his importance.  And if you are anal-retentive like me you go back to see if you missed a easter egg in the first trilogy and then feel a bit cheated (but also relieved).  

Thinking about the series a little bit more, I was trying to identify why I left the Wisdom of Crowds unsatisfied.  It feels like the whole meta-series desperately needs endings and conclusions. 

Lots of stuff is happening, but it feels like the scenery is getting changed but the story's not really progressing somehow?

Of course, real history is messy and one damn thing after the other, so in a totally non-ironic sense the series has improved so much in terms of historical verisimilitude.  But what is the meta-narrative here? Is there one? 

[Ser Not Appearing]

6 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Eh, it felt a bit like a retcon to inflate his importance.  And if you are anal-retentive like me you go back to see if you missed a easter egg in the first trilogy and then feel a bit cheated (but also relieved).  

Thinking about the series a little bit more, I was trying to identify why I left the Wisdom of Crowds unsatisfied.  It feels like the whole meta-series desperately needs endings and conclusions. 

Lots of stuff is happening, but it feels like the scenery is getting changed but the story's not really progressing somehow?

Of course, real history is messy and one damn thing after the other, so in a totally non-ironic sense the series has improved so much in terms of historical verisimilitude.  But what is the meta-narrative here? Is there one? 

I tend to view it as the story of Bayaz and Khalul. We're witnessing the complete destabilization of what Bayaz built and his control thereof. That has significant impact on his ability to respond to Khalul. I would expect their conflict comes more and more to the fore. You're also seeing, I think, that Bayaz is far from a Gandalf figure and is much more an evil persona than initially expected.

 

... but I've been known to be wrong.

[Maithanet]

25 minutes ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

You're also seeing, I think, that Bayaz is far from a Gandalf figure and is much more an evil persona than initially expected.

That was certainly the lesson of the first trilogy.  I wouldn't say he came across as particularly more evil in the second trilogy than the first.  Perhaps less effective as a political actor and weaker in terms of the tools at his disposal, but I'd like to think that had something to do with the forces opposing him finally putting things together.  Losing the power base in Talinns happened because of a combination of bad luck and Shenkt reappearing as a major player.  Losing control of the Union is a much greater blow - the result of entrusting the wrong person in Glokta and general inattention to allow the situation to spiral out of control. 

[Ser Not Appearing]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

That was certainly the lesson of the first trilogy.  I wouldn't say he came across as particularly more evil in the second trilogy than the first.  Perhaps less effective as a political actor and weaker in terms of the tools at his disposal, but I'd like to think that had something to do with the forces opposing him finally putting things together.  Losing the power base in Talinns happened because of a combination of bad luck and Shenkt reappearing as a major player.  Losing control of the Union is a much greater blow - the result of entrusting the wrong person in Glokta and general inattention to allow the situation to spiral out of control. 

 

I need to reread because I don't recall specifically enough anymore but I thought Bayaz was engaging in some clear rulebreaking in the most recent series. It left me with a strong impression of him as a hypocrite and more; basically that there are no boundaries on what he'll do to accomplish what he wants (and what he wants is pretty self-serving) ... the general rational of any true antagonist.

 

I came away with an even stronger impression of him as morally / righteousness deficient.

[Maithanet]

Maybe we're talking past each other.  I am saying it was pretty clear that Bayaz was a hypocrite and an evil character by the end of LAOK.  Nothing in the second trilogy changed that at all.  I didn't feel like he was getting worse in terms of "more evil" in the second trilogy becuase he was an evil bastard the whole time, he was just hiding it for a while in Books 1 and 2 because he needed people like Logen and Jezal to do his bidding and that required a certain amount of deception.

The change in Bayaz, if their was one, was that he seemed a little off his game in the second trilogy, getting thoroughly outmanuevered by Glokta, losing control of the Union and losing his valuable servent Sulfur.  He'll no doubt try and turn things around in the third trilogy, as was foretold with the prophecies.  We'll see how successful he is. 

[Ser Not Appearing]

54 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe we're talking past each other.  I am saying it was pretty clear that Bayaz was a hypocrite and an evil character by the end of LAOK.  Nothing in the second trilogy changed that at all.  I didn't feel like he was getting worse in terms of "more evil" in the second trilogy becuase he was an evil bastard the whole time, he was just hiding it for a while in Books 1 and 2 because he needed people like Logen and Jezal to do his bidding and that required a certain amount of deception.

The change in Bayaz, if their was one, was that he seemed a little off his game in the second trilogy, getting thoroughly outmanuevered by Glokta, losing control of the Union and losing his valuable servent Sulfur.  He'll no doubt try and turn things around in the third trilogy, as was foretold with the prophecies.  We'll see how successful he is. 

 

Yeah, sounds like we're mostly of the same mind.

[Ser Not Appearing]

In other news, I had a friend recently start reading the series and he told me today that Brother Longfoot sounds like a character I would create and role play.

I'm uncertain whether or not I'm insulted by that. I actually liked Brother Longfoot, even though he was meant to be annoying.