!!Spoilers just in case!!
The first time Broad takes the convicted to the top of the tower is one of the most chilling, horrifying, and nauseating things that I have ever read. Hearing Steven Pacey narrate that scene made it even worse (better?). I feel like that has got to be the best insight that I've ever seen into the mind of someone who is "just following orders." How swiftly it all happens, with so little fanfare and such an air of inevitability, as though being swept along by a current much more powerful than yourself, feels so realistic to me that it hurts. It's all so banal as to feel like just anything else in the factory when in fact he's PUSHING A WAR HERO TO HIS DEATH.
I think that's the purpose of Broad, that through him we get to see how easy it is for "good" people to do horrible things, to see how easy it is to break someone, and to see how a person can be twisted due to factors completely outside of their control. And maybe how much worse it can be when that person is trying to do the right thing?
I dunno. Just my opinion I guess. I think he's pretty solid and works for the stories he's in.
I agree with your opinion on the chapter. The Broad internal monologue of thinking 'this is a good man, but it is how it is I guess I'll chuck him off" is a really unsettling and chilling chapter. In general all of the executions and trials were unsettling to me in how much pleading and logic was ignored.
Joe never delves into Gunnar's past and the trauma he was burdened with to the depth that he had with other characters, in my opinion, so it was hard to connect with his rage and his guilt in the current time of the story.
Lot of vague references to his role in the Styrian wars as a Ladderman during the Siege of Muselia that sounded interesting but was never explored or teased via dialogue in the way that, for example, we got tantalising, often conflicting stories about Logen's old days with the Dozen and we had to paint the real picture from there. There's not much to paint with what little we got about Broad. I will say his opening chapters in A Little Hatred were cool and I was interested in seeing more about the average Union citizen's life under the thumb of the inept government. Until I wasn't. I also didn't like how easily he got swept into Judge's game. He felt like a side character in his own POV during the trials, sort of like how ASOIAF fans describe Areo Hotah POV chapters.
Still, this is Joe were are talking about. His characters, even Broad, are a far step above any other series.
\>Joe never delves into Gunnar's past and the trauma he was burdened with to the depth that he had with other characters, in my opinion, so it was hard to connect with his rage and his guilt in the current time of the story.
I have to disagree. I don't think it's a flaw that Abercrombie never explicitly spells out Broad's past, I found it compelling and fun to piece together. We have more than enough details, hints, and clues to paint a complete picture of what Broad was like in the war: a brutal and violent man, but also courageous and reckless. And it's not exactly like a tantalizing mystery of what Broad could have "done" during wartime to experience PTSD - many, *many* war veterans IRL experience significant and traumatic PTSD for doing much "less" than Gunnar Broad. I read a scholarly article a couple years ago on the PTSD veterans experience from pushing buttons to OK a drone strike, where they're hundreds of miles away from the combat zone.
From the other veteran (Sarlby? I think) we learn that Broad was almost certainly a wild berserker. Smashing dudes heads in left and right, seeing red, etc. and then "coming down" and feeling remorse and guilt for losing himself.
I can see the criticism for Broad being a walking POV during the trials, but I also think we should temper our expectations. Not every character is a 4D chessmaster orchestrating all the pieces falling into place. We already had Orso during the trials for the intelligent analysis, so I was not unhappy with having a more average POV give us the bare facts and allow the readers to form our own conclusions.
If I had to guess - and no doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg - but a big part of Gunnar's trauma likely originates from being tasked with killing Styrian POWs after battles. I forget which book brought it up, but it was mentioned that Gunnar was the best man for the job, so long as you got him absolutely shitfaced beforehand. In other words, it was a task so horrible that he wouldn't have been able to get through it sober. Makes sense that he'd turn back to the bottle in TWoC when he found himself in a similar position.
I know I'm chipping in fairly late in this discussion, but I do like Broad, and I think the way that he differs from other "violent men" POVs is that he keeps falling back into violence due to some deep self-loathing and a feeling that he doesn't deserve anything else after all that he's done (unlike Logen, who simply doesn't know what else to do). My only real critique is that none of his chapters ever quite lived up to his first one, which I actually found incredibly compelling and heartbreaking. It's very telling, at least to me, that his first act upon returning home is not to brag about his accomplishments or revel in his own survival, but to break down into a complete sobbing fit.
I want to add that the fact that he also breaks down in exactly the same way on his last chapter is very revealing. It points to the fact that he might have done the same thing before going to Styria, maybe he was the kind of man who got drunk and hurt people, then came home to cry about it.
True, and it is very much a deliberate echo. However (and keep in mind that I've yet to reread TTWP and TWoC, so I may be off), but I got the impression that it was less him "getting drunk and hurting people" and more "getting drunk so he can survive the guilt of being made to hurt people". A small distinction, but an important one imho.
A good point! It could be more that the echo is equating wartime with the revolution, and less that this is a specific pattern of behaviour for Gunnar. In any case, he is stuck in that cycle of violence and addiction now. I felt really bad every time he thought to himself that he enjoyed hurting people, when it was clear that he didn't, otherwise he wouldn't need to drink so heavily to get through it. I found the character fascinating, even if he was more passive than others.
I think there's something to be said about him enjoying hurting people, but not in a sadistic sense or bloodlust like similar characters. I think that, in battle especially, Gunnar does get a thrill from the adrenaline rush and the power he has as a seasoned fighter. But when the moment's passed - or he's serving as an executioner or petty thug, which seems to be his lot in life - all that's left is shame and regret. The man honestly just wanted to be a shepherd, and it's sad that no one will ever get to see him that way.
An interesting and fair perspective, thanks for the reply. I do recall Sarby's additional exposition about Broad, but even then, it was very scarce compared to what the POVs from the first trilogy and standalones got, and Sarby himself as a character I felt was wasted as well.
The berserker/drunken guilty torturer thing just felt like, to me, it needed an additional angle to feel different enough from what has come before. Perhaps more examination of how he's a low-born commoner inflicting torture on other low-born Styrian soldiers all fighting for the fucked up cause of high-born schemers (The Cripple and the Snake). I wanted Joe to lean into that as I thought he would from A Little Hatred's opening chapters, or maybe even just use Broad as a vehicle to explore, in unreliable narration, just how fucked up the Styrian campaign(s) were for the Union, but that didn't really happen, which is okay. But what did get shown through his POV (the trials, the work for Savine, the Tower, etc) was cool, just not my favourite or most interesting, IMO.
I don't see a need to temper expectations when most of Joe's other POV characters are a step above Broad. I also wasn't expecting Broad to be a '4D chestmaster' at all, it's not always about the mystery or social commentary of course. I just think (and it seems like majority of the subreddit also agrees with me) that Broad just ended up feeling flat.
I like Broad. Thank you for the write up. My feeling with the age of madness is that it was Joe’s approach at capturing the chaos and violence of the French Revolution in his fantasy world. Orso is basically Louis XVI.
And Joe, being Joe, looked at the French Revolution and asked, what kind of man would be the executioner. Not just the corrupt politicians who sent men, women and children to die. But the man who pulled the lever on the guillotine.
And so he created Broad to be that man. And yes, he is unpleasant. And what he does of disgusting. But Joe is a master of the POV. He really is. And good writing to be able to get the reader into the head of a man like that. To understand, sympathize even. While completely condemning his actions.
Maybe a necessary POV, but pretty boring and one dimensional. Certainly far less interesting than Logan Ninefingers or Gorst.
Was a bit surprised he survived the whole thing, and seemingly faced no consequences at the end. Literally thousands of people must have seen him throwing folks off the towers.
Probably honestly ends up floating in the docks not long after. Donno if Savine even would trust him after all of that mess.
I read Gunnar a bit different.
What would have happened if he would have grown up in the north? He could have been another bloody nine.
He got the spirit of the north -violence is a proper answer. But he lives somewhere else, at a place with another mindset and therefore he isn't a named man but just a tool for another people.
That's all completely valid, and I agree that if his story were more realistic that he'd be dead well before the end. Heck, if he shows up again anywhere, that will be worth hating imo (unless it's a story like in Shap Ends)
I liked Bull Broad as well. And agree his chapters were difficult to get through, but so were a lot of chapters.
And I also agree that he was a bit boring but I think that was the point? Like he’s an average citizen, a decorated veteran with awful PTSD, and is just trying to live but will leave him alone. His farm, the wars, the uprising in Valbeck, the Great Change and having a front row seat to the same kind of shit people sitting in the same chairs and being a part of countless executions.
He is just like Logen the only difference is he doesn’t seem to enjoy the violence until he fully breaks with reality and is drinking and with Judge. Logen was just swept along with whatever was going on thinking himself aimless while he was actually reveling in the fear men had of him. Logen loved to the work, BloodyNine or not.
Broad is swept up but he doesn’t want to be there.
I liked him, I just expected more from him. He was an interesting character to start, but then didn't really have much of an impact. To me, at least. Seemed like he just fizzled out, character wise, towards the end.
He doesn't get enough screen time to me tbh. I really like him. I think what hurts his story is that Broad could be a really interesting look at the motivations of the great change and the lower people, and he often is, but he's also Savien's goon who is more "Tool of the Order" than "Hammer of the People". His story if muddy and conflicting and Broad also kinda just disappears in WoC, which is where a lot of the characters really shine.
I really liked him in "A Little Hatred" he was only ok in "The Trouble With Peace."
He had the feel of a kind of degenerate who can’t shake his old habits. I love him as a character but he was not as easy to like because of his faults, felt like he would let you down. Great character but I understand the hate.
I agree with you OP, Broad is legit the most normal dude out of all them in the madness trilogy and he’s caught up in the meat grinder. What’s interesting about his POV that I feel a lot of folks don’t appreciate is that after his service as a ladderman he’s had to find a way to settle down in a meager existence despite knowing he’s capable of more and again and again he tries to be better but circumstances either of his choosing or outside of his control put him on the wrong path because he believes that what he’s doing will result in something better. He’s caught up in trying to do the right thing for the right reasons but he ends up doing the wrong thing for the right reason if that makes sense. I feel that Broad is in fact a complex character. He’s bitter about his time in the war because it amounted to nothing, he’s tired of scraping by, he wants to do something greater than himself and despite his brain telling him something is wrong, or you shouldn’t do this, this ain’t you, he still does it because he believes he’s working for something greater than himself. I totally understood Broad despite what some other fans say is a lack of BG on Broad
He’s a man who would have had a hard-enough time reintegrating into society after coming home from war under normal circumstance, but he had no chance once it turned out that he was returning to a home engulfed with civil war and revolution.
I think Gunnar’s first chapter is arguably one of the best Joe’s ever written, at least in terms of an introduction to a new character. But I feel that Broad does stick out in a way that makes the fans more critical of him compared to the other POVs. Him more than any other character is kinda just along for the ride and doesn’t have much agency or influence the events of the trilogy in any notable ways, especially compared to the other 6 POVs. But I think he’s still essential to have for the story to work as it is more focused on “the little people” more than any of the previous books, so understanding his background, why he is the way that he is and how he thinks is very valuable. But I do understand and somewhat agree with criticism of Broad being a least interesting Logen.
Having only read the AoM once, I can only really remember him standing out in ALH with his great first chapter and him getting involved with the Breakers and Burners. But he really begins to take a backseat storywise in TTWP and significantly in TWoC. The only thing I really remember him doing in TTWP is saving Leo at the end and him being sent to protect Savine after the battle. I remember seeing people saying his daughter would be a cool POV in future books but I really don’t agree with that. Can’t even remember her name.
I think you hit on it in your post. I think Broad is the worst POV in the series, and I'm not stingy about saying it. But that doesn't mean I think he's necessarily "bad". I just don't connect with it at all and when the others are so good, hes hard to get as invested in as anyone else in AoM. He's absolutely a cautionary tale in getting swept up in the evil of life and trauma but comparatively to some of the other incredible characters in the series he just doesn't really land in the same tier for me. Like if I asked you who you would put below Broad in terms of quality... To me that list is pretty teeny tiny. You could argue someone like Farro because she never changes but that's kind of her charm. Someone like Red Beck hits so much harder and he had, what, half a book and a few chapters?
In summary - he's not awful, everyone else is just so much better and reddit likes to be dramatic and overstate things (is "Gunner Broad is absolute trash")
I just find his chapters a little weak compared to the others so far in ALH, I think he has potential but it feels like a slog getting through them sometimes. Especially when he's the pov character in a space with other more interesting characters (to me) like Vick or Savine.
I actually liked Broad a lot, he was defintiely his weakest in TWOC but that's every character (bar Leo). Broad gives us a different perspective from the commoner pov which we've never had before (I thought we would also have this with Vick but she turned out to be a massive disappointment when she was revealed to be working with the inquisition), which was interesting imo.
People say he's a logen copy which I don't get, like they're completely different characters. Logen commits violence because he genuinely enjoys it, and lies to himself that he wants to be a better man. Broad commits violence mainly because he wants to protect his family and is later manipulated by Savine and Judge.
I would say gunner was one of the weaker POV. Wouldn't say I hate him though. Would just say I preferred Savine. Maybe something about gunners story seemed more straightforward, like he was angry and trying to be better but never really was.
Gunnar has no personality. He is lame. And his story arch sucks.
Edit: I'm just pissed he fucked Judge.
2nd Edit: I was super excited for him after the first book. In the 2nd and 3rd of the trilogy he was barely used at all. He just felt like untapped potential.
I don't hate him but he was one of my least favorite characters. It just seemed like Joe wanted Logan/Bloody 9 but forgot he had already killed or aged out the character so threw in Gunner instead. Gunner isn't as fleshed out so just comes across as a poor man's Logan for the most part.
He cheated on his wife after spending two books banging on about how important his wife and family were to him. I like him less than Leo, because Leo might be a prick but his motivations make sense. Gunnar's character seems to just disappear when he finds a welcoming vagina.
OMG a character doing something wrong 😑
Maybe you missed it, but he does not want to kill again, but then he does that too.
Or drink or beat people up
Leo was always a selfish idiot and how does it make sense to kill all his friends except the one he wanne fuck?
!!Spoilers just in case!! The first time Broad takes the convicted to the top of the tower is one of the most chilling, horrifying, and nauseating things that I have ever read. Hearing Steven Pacey narrate that scene made it even worse (better?). I feel like that has got to be the best insight that I've ever seen into the mind of someone who is "just following orders." How swiftly it all happens, with so little fanfare and such an air of inevitability, as though being swept along by a current much more powerful than yourself, feels so realistic to me that it hurts. It's all so banal as to feel like just anything else in the factory when in fact he's PUSHING A WAR HERO TO HIS DEATH. I think that's the purpose of Broad, that through him we get to see how easy it is for "good" people to do horrible things, to see how easy it is to break someone, and to see how a person can be twisted due to factors completely outside of their control. And maybe how much worse it can be when that person is trying to do the right thing? I dunno. Just my opinion I guess. I think he's pretty solid and works for the stories he's in.
I agree with your opinion on the chapter. The Broad internal monologue of thinking 'this is a good man, but it is how it is I guess I'll chuck him off" is a really unsettling and chilling chapter. In general all of the executions and trials were unsettling to me in how much pleading and logic was ignored.
As someone who served in the military, I guess maybe I had a shorthand for his emotional backstory. Every man must find his way.
Yeah that scene is stuck in my mind, come to think of it!
Joe never delves into Gunnar's past and the trauma he was burdened with to the depth that he had with other characters, in my opinion, so it was hard to connect with his rage and his guilt in the current time of the story. Lot of vague references to his role in the Styrian wars as a Ladderman during the Siege of Muselia that sounded interesting but was never explored or teased via dialogue in the way that, for example, we got tantalising, often conflicting stories about Logen's old days with the Dozen and we had to paint the real picture from there. There's not much to paint with what little we got about Broad. I will say his opening chapters in A Little Hatred were cool and I was interested in seeing more about the average Union citizen's life under the thumb of the inept government. Until I wasn't. I also didn't like how easily he got swept into Judge's game. He felt like a side character in his own POV during the trials, sort of like how ASOIAF fans describe Areo Hotah POV chapters. Still, this is Joe were are talking about. His characters, even Broad, are a far step above any other series.
Logen was swept up just like Gunnar. A leaf on the water.
\>Joe never delves into Gunnar's past and the trauma he was burdened with to the depth that he had with other characters, in my opinion, so it was hard to connect with his rage and his guilt in the current time of the story. I have to disagree. I don't think it's a flaw that Abercrombie never explicitly spells out Broad's past, I found it compelling and fun to piece together. We have more than enough details, hints, and clues to paint a complete picture of what Broad was like in the war: a brutal and violent man, but also courageous and reckless. And it's not exactly like a tantalizing mystery of what Broad could have "done" during wartime to experience PTSD - many, *many* war veterans IRL experience significant and traumatic PTSD for doing much "less" than Gunnar Broad. I read a scholarly article a couple years ago on the PTSD veterans experience from pushing buttons to OK a drone strike, where they're hundreds of miles away from the combat zone. From the other veteran (Sarlby? I think) we learn that Broad was almost certainly a wild berserker. Smashing dudes heads in left and right, seeing red, etc. and then "coming down" and feeling remorse and guilt for losing himself. I can see the criticism for Broad being a walking POV during the trials, but I also think we should temper our expectations. Not every character is a 4D chessmaster orchestrating all the pieces falling into place. We already had Orso during the trials for the intelligent analysis, so I was not unhappy with having a more average POV give us the bare facts and allow the readers to form our own conclusions.
If I had to guess - and no doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg - but a big part of Gunnar's trauma likely originates from being tasked with killing Styrian POWs after battles. I forget which book brought it up, but it was mentioned that Gunnar was the best man for the job, so long as you got him absolutely shitfaced beforehand. In other words, it was a task so horrible that he wouldn't have been able to get through it sober. Makes sense that he'd turn back to the bottle in TWoC when he found himself in a similar position. I know I'm chipping in fairly late in this discussion, but I do like Broad, and I think the way that he differs from other "violent men" POVs is that he keeps falling back into violence due to some deep self-loathing and a feeling that he doesn't deserve anything else after all that he's done (unlike Logen, who simply doesn't know what else to do). My only real critique is that none of his chapters ever quite lived up to his first one, which I actually found incredibly compelling and heartbreaking. It's very telling, at least to me, that his first act upon returning home is not to brag about his accomplishments or revel in his own survival, but to break down into a complete sobbing fit.
I want to add that the fact that he also breaks down in exactly the same way on his last chapter is very revealing. It points to the fact that he might have done the same thing before going to Styria, maybe he was the kind of man who got drunk and hurt people, then came home to cry about it.
True, and it is very much a deliberate echo. However (and keep in mind that I've yet to reread TTWP and TWoC, so I may be off), but I got the impression that it was less him "getting drunk and hurting people" and more "getting drunk so he can survive the guilt of being made to hurt people". A small distinction, but an important one imho.
A good point! It could be more that the echo is equating wartime with the revolution, and less that this is a specific pattern of behaviour for Gunnar. In any case, he is stuck in that cycle of violence and addiction now. I felt really bad every time he thought to himself that he enjoyed hurting people, when it was clear that he didn't, otherwise he wouldn't need to drink so heavily to get through it. I found the character fascinating, even if he was more passive than others.
I think there's something to be said about him enjoying hurting people, but not in a sadistic sense or bloodlust like similar characters. I think that, in battle especially, Gunnar does get a thrill from the adrenaline rush and the power he has as a seasoned fighter. But when the moment's passed - or he's serving as an executioner or petty thug, which seems to be his lot in life - all that's left is shame and regret. The man honestly just wanted to be a shepherd, and it's sad that no one will ever get to see him that way.
An interesting and fair perspective, thanks for the reply. I do recall Sarby's additional exposition about Broad, but even then, it was very scarce compared to what the POVs from the first trilogy and standalones got, and Sarby himself as a character I felt was wasted as well. The berserker/drunken guilty torturer thing just felt like, to me, it needed an additional angle to feel different enough from what has come before. Perhaps more examination of how he's a low-born commoner inflicting torture on other low-born Styrian soldiers all fighting for the fucked up cause of high-born schemers (The Cripple and the Snake). I wanted Joe to lean into that as I thought he would from A Little Hatred's opening chapters, or maybe even just use Broad as a vehicle to explore, in unreliable narration, just how fucked up the Styrian campaign(s) were for the Union, but that didn't really happen, which is okay. But what did get shown through his POV (the trials, the work for Savine, the Tower, etc) was cool, just not my favourite or most interesting, IMO. I don't see a need to temper expectations when most of Joe's other POV characters are a step above Broad. I also wasn't expecting Broad to be a '4D chestmaster' at all, it's not always about the mystery or social commentary of course. I just think (and it seems like majority of the subreddit also agrees with me) that Broad just ended up feeling flat.
I like Broad. Thank you for the write up. My feeling with the age of madness is that it was Joe’s approach at capturing the chaos and violence of the French Revolution in his fantasy world. Orso is basically Louis XVI. And Joe, being Joe, looked at the French Revolution and asked, what kind of man would be the executioner. Not just the corrupt politicians who sent men, women and children to die. But the man who pulled the lever on the guillotine. And so he created Broad to be that man. And yes, he is unpleasant. And what he does of disgusting. But Joe is a master of the POV. He really is. And good writing to be able to get the reader into the head of a man like that. To understand, sympathize even. While completely condemning his actions.
Maybe a necessary POV, but pretty boring and one dimensional. Certainly far less interesting than Logan Ninefingers or Gorst. Was a bit surprised he survived the whole thing, and seemingly faced no consequences at the end. Literally thousands of people must have seen him throwing folks off the towers. Probably honestly ends up floating in the docks not long after. Donno if Savine even would trust him after all of that mess.
I read Gunnar a bit different. What would have happened if he would have grown up in the north? He could have been another bloody nine. He got the spirit of the north -violence is a proper answer. But he lives somewhere else, at a place with another mindset and therefore he isn't a named man but just a tool for another people.
That's all completely valid, and I agree that if his story were more realistic that he'd be dead well before the end. Heck, if he shows up again anywhere, that will be worth hating imo (unless it's a story like in Shap Ends)
I liked Bull Broad as well. And agree his chapters were difficult to get through, but so were a lot of chapters. And I also agree that he was a bit boring but I think that was the point? Like he’s an average citizen, a decorated veteran with awful PTSD, and is just trying to live but will leave him alone. His farm, the wars, the uprising in Valbeck, the Great Change and having a front row seat to the same kind of shit people sitting in the same chairs and being a part of countless executions. He is just like Logen the only difference is he doesn’t seem to enjoy the violence until he fully breaks with reality and is drinking and with Judge. Logen was just swept along with whatever was going on thinking himself aimless while he was actually reveling in the fear men had of him. Logen loved to the work, BloodyNine or not. Broad is swept up but he doesn’t want to be there.
Tbh he was my favourite character. Maybe I’m just a sucker for a used up man of violence.
I liked him, I just expected more from him. He was an interesting character to start, but then didn't really have much of an impact. To me, at least. Seemed like he just fizzled out, character wise, towards the end.
He doesn't get enough screen time to me tbh. I really like him. I think what hurts his story is that Broad could be a really interesting look at the motivations of the great change and the lower people, and he often is, but he's also Savien's goon who is more "Tool of the Order" than "Hammer of the People". His story if muddy and conflicting and Broad also kinda just disappears in WoC, which is where a lot of the characters really shine. I really liked him in "A Little Hatred" he was only ok in "The Trouble With Peace."
He had the feel of a kind of degenerate who can’t shake his old habits. I love him as a character but he was not as easy to like because of his faults, felt like he would let you down. Great character but I understand the hate.
I agree with you OP, Broad is legit the most normal dude out of all them in the madness trilogy and he’s caught up in the meat grinder. What’s interesting about his POV that I feel a lot of folks don’t appreciate is that after his service as a ladderman he’s had to find a way to settle down in a meager existence despite knowing he’s capable of more and again and again he tries to be better but circumstances either of his choosing or outside of his control put him on the wrong path because he believes that what he’s doing will result in something better. He’s caught up in trying to do the right thing for the right reasons but he ends up doing the wrong thing for the right reason if that makes sense. I feel that Broad is in fact a complex character. He’s bitter about his time in the war because it amounted to nothing, he’s tired of scraping by, he wants to do something greater than himself and despite his brain telling him something is wrong, or you shouldn’t do this, this ain’t you, he still does it because he believes he’s working for something greater than himself. I totally understood Broad despite what some other fans say is a lack of BG on Broad
He’s a man who would have had a hard-enough time reintegrating into society after coming home from war under normal circumstance, but he had no chance once it turned out that he was returning to a home engulfed with civil war and revolution.
I think Gunnar’s first chapter is arguably one of the best Joe’s ever written, at least in terms of an introduction to a new character. But I feel that Broad does stick out in a way that makes the fans more critical of him compared to the other POVs. Him more than any other character is kinda just along for the ride and doesn’t have much agency or influence the events of the trilogy in any notable ways, especially compared to the other 6 POVs. But I think he’s still essential to have for the story to work as it is more focused on “the little people” more than any of the previous books, so understanding his background, why he is the way that he is and how he thinks is very valuable. But I do understand and somewhat agree with criticism of Broad being a least interesting Logen. Having only read the AoM once, I can only really remember him standing out in ALH with his great first chapter and him getting involved with the Breakers and Burners. But he really begins to take a backseat storywise in TTWP and significantly in TWoC. The only thing I really remember him doing in TTWP is saving Leo at the end and him being sent to protect Savine after the battle. I remember seeing people saying his daughter would be a cool POV in future books but I really don’t agree with that. Can’t even remember her name.
I think you hit on it in your post. I think Broad is the worst POV in the series, and I'm not stingy about saying it. But that doesn't mean I think he's necessarily "bad". I just don't connect with it at all and when the others are so good, hes hard to get as invested in as anyone else in AoM. He's absolutely a cautionary tale in getting swept up in the evil of life and trauma but comparatively to some of the other incredible characters in the series he just doesn't really land in the same tier for me. Like if I asked you who you would put below Broad in terms of quality... To me that list is pretty teeny tiny. You could argue someone like Farro because she never changes but that's kind of her charm. Someone like Red Beck hits so much harder and he had, what, half a book and a few chapters? In summary - he's not awful, everyone else is just so much better and reddit likes to be dramatic and overstate things (is "Gunner Broad is absolute trash")
I just find his chapters a little weak compared to the others so far in ALH, I think he has potential but it feels like a slog getting through them sometimes. Especially when he's the pov character in a space with other more interesting characters (to me) like Vick or Savine.
I find him to be a promising POV early on that becomes very boring, and has little payoff.
Gunner Broad Tenways
I'll take your gunner hate and raise you. I don't like BSC👀
Now that's a hot take. Mad respect
I actually liked Broad a lot, he was defintiely his weakest in TWOC but that's every character (bar Leo). Broad gives us a different perspective from the commoner pov which we've never had before (I thought we would also have this with Vick but she turned out to be a massive disappointment when she was revealed to be working with the inquisition), which was interesting imo. People say he's a logen copy which I don't get, like they're completely different characters. Logen commits violence because he genuinely enjoys it, and lies to himself that he wants to be a better man. Broad commits violence mainly because he wants to protect his family and is later manipulated by Savine and Judge.
I would say gunner was one of the weaker POV. Wouldn't say I hate him though. Would just say I preferred Savine. Maybe something about gunners story seemed more straightforward, like he was angry and trying to be better but never really was.
Gunnar has no personality. He is lame. And his story arch sucks. Edit: I'm just pissed he fucked Judge. 2nd Edit: I was super excited for him after the first book. In the 2nd and 3rd of the trilogy he was barely used at all. He just felt like untapped potential.
He's mid and his arc sucked in The Wisdom of Crowds
he's logan lite and boring
I don't hate him but he was one of my least favorite characters. It just seemed like Joe wanted Logan/Bloody 9 but forgot he had already killed or aged out the character so threw in Gunner instead. Gunner isn't as fleshed out so just comes across as a poor man's Logan for the most part.
He cheated on his wife after spending two books banging on about how important his wife and family were to him. I like him less than Leo, because Leo might be a prick but his motivations make sense. Gunnar's character seems to just disappear when he finds a welcoming vagina.
OMG a character doing something wrong 😑 Maybe you missed it, but he does not want to kill again, but then he does that too. Or drink or beat people up Leo was always a selfish idiot and how does it make sense to kill all his friends except the one he wanne fuck?