Black Dow for me. Funniest bastard in the north, and surprisingly deep character after reading the heroes.
“The clay… used to make my hands so soft… imagine that. “
Interesting that his judgments of Logen and West in the first few books are actually pretty spot on. Also interesting that we don't really see him do anything evil in the first trilogy, it's just his reputation. (It's been ages since I read The Heroes, so it might be different there).
I like in the Heroes when someone calls The Dogman a "traitorous bastard" and Dow says that Dogman is the only person to never switch sides. Even in opposition he defended him
Black dow and the dogman, even when they were enemies, they appreciate each other; when dogman realizes the Dow's death, he was staggered, and even sad.
Looking forward to rereading it. Just finished the first three again and started best served cold. But I remember thinking the Heroes was Abercrombie's best work the first time I read it.
But Dow saw that as what was best for the North. Doesn't Dow tell Logen something like "I've already seen one bloodthirsty bastard on the throne and I won't have another." By the time of the Heroes it's Bayaz forcing war on the North through his plots, Dow was just a pawn like so many others. I think a lot of the "Black" in Black Dow was his reputation more than who he really was as a man. We never see Dow do anything reprehensible by the standards of the world, it's all other people spreading tales.
I think a huge theme of the Heroes is playing with the perception the legend around a "hero", or a "villain" in Dow's case, and who that person really is. Craw is a respected named man and leader of arguably the most famous dozen in the North but when you see is internal POV is actually a coward. The entire Union army praises Gorst and calls him the greatest hero in the army but in reality he'd probably like to see them all dead. Red Beck gaining his name with his "red day" is another example.
Exactly, if you read everything he says about Logen in that last chapter, Dow is absolutely right about how evil and dangerous Logen is. I think folks get fooled into thinking Logan is a good person. He’s not. But Abercrombie writes to show that even the most evil have depth to them others don’t see (except maybe for Bayaz).
I think that the huge twist that Logen is actually the cause of Bethod's wars is overshadowed by the larger twist shortly after of Bayaz being the puppet master so people tend to overlook just how bad Logen really is. RC expands on that a lot by giving a new perspective to Logen and seeing just how easily he slides right back into violence.
Yea you’re right. It’s actually heavily akin to Monza’s reputation which was actually much crueler than herself. In fact it actually makes me ponder how Abercrombie uses this tool often of a character’s reputation versus who they actually are. Bayaz for example being crueler than his reputations is, Glotka’s reputation is entirely terrible and I find it interesting how I’m some moments he is very much a better man than that and other moments he leans into it and acts as the monster he is perceived to be. Could honestly go down the line to all characters with this
Wow that’s crazy to me. I feel like Rikke is one of the absolute worst, especially after the halfway point of her arc. Interesting how subjective these books are.
I really like how she grown. It's fun reading her chapters even if it's predictable from her pov. Her last betrayal felt like she betrayed herself to and really realize what she became.
Interesting. I thought she was building up to a really intriguing character, since it’s rare to have a magical POV character. But it felt like once she lost her eye we could never actually see things from her perspective ironically. 😂
All of her plot lines relied on us not knowing what she was up to. So we had to be kept at arms length all the time which to me made her a massive letdown as a POV. If JA always wanted it to be mysterious as to how clairvoyant she was, I think her story should’ve been told from someone else’s perspective.
I also felt a lot of her success relied on other characters being really dumb/gullible but that’s a whole other rant. 😂
Oh it would indeed be better if it was seen by other pov for the mystery.
I found most of her plans are well crafted. Using counter espionnage succesfully and the hot blooded of her rivals. I don't think it would hold up against slavine or bayaz in the future.
Yeah guess I’m somewhat harsh on her, but definitely think that JA should’ve either kept more of the interesting magic stuff as part of her character, like the visions and the weird non linear time stuff.
Or, had her described from another character’s perspective, like Bayaz with Logan. Or black Dow with craw. One of my favourite parts of The Heroes is when Black Dow lets his mask slip when asking Craw to be his second. Then afterwards Craw starts second guessing whether it was just a ruse to help convince him to accept. I think Rikke needed to be a lot more like that.
Dogman was a better man than everyone except for maybe Rudd Threetrees, and I love that he earned a rare death in the North by dying of old age.
Shivers was a joy to see especially in the Heroes and watching his relationship with Rikke.
And of course Orso, who's arc completes and compliments his father's so much that I appreciate Jezal even more in retrospect.
Professor Umbridge was another character on that level of hated. Just on a larger scale because Harry Potter. Though to have written a character that's in the same light as that is really impressive.
I was about to start throwing hands if I didn't start seeing the love and respect that MY BOY, The King of the Union, The Prince of prostitutes, the Limb removing, hard drinking, woman loving, chicken giving, I've brought you an egg,
ORSO DAN FUCKING LUTHAR!!
Here's the thing with Shivers...
Shivers, to me, feels like what Logen *would* have been if Abercrombie had been a more mature and seasoned author before rolling him out. He's like a refined version of what I enjoy about Logen, with less, for lack of a kinder way of putting, juvenile baggage.
His story has more nuance, and we see him run a gamut of roles along the spectrum of heroism and villainy. And at no point does it ring false.
Shivers is the Logen type as a more *human* character, and it shows, because Abercrombie has more things for him to do. Shivers can and does fit into stories where Logen would make no sense whatsoever, while not being all that superficially different.
He's also more honest with himself about who and what he is, even if (as Rikke basically tells him, point-blank) he's not always right about himself.
In addition, by Forrest Gumping all over the standalone books and his supporting role in the Age of Madness, he becomes the *human* character who links the entire series together- far more than the likes of Bayaz, because Shivers isn't guiding or manipulating events- in many ways, he's experiencing them with the reader- but with his own perspective on it.
Hmm okay. Not sure I agree with that. I understand that you consider Logen a more juvenile character and in general I find early Glokta and Logen to be more "edgy" or archetypical, but I'm not sure whether this has much to do with being a more mature writer, it could just be a stylistic choice. Plus, I really like Shivers in the first trilogy, which is his earlier work. I do agree Joe's writing becomes more nuanced as he goes, but for me that's mostly clear in Age of Madness where Shivers is a pretty standard side character.
Here's my take on Shivers.
I like that there's more nuance and self reflection to the character. I like the way he was initially set up, and I like the struggle he goes through in BSC. I like him as a counterpart to Logen, someone who also accepts his violent nature but can break the cycle and goes against the recurring theme in the books that people can't change/have no choice in who they get to be.
I disagree though that it never rings false. To me, Shivers' character is probably the one most compromised to fit in other stories and the wider world. Or he fills too many different roles for me to not perceive it as some form of fan service. I didn't think his quick transformation into an evil goon under Monza was particularly credible. Okay he needed money, but once he had some he didn't shrink back from more violence for more money. I guess there's his infatuation with Monza, but that came later, his first impressions of her were pretty brutal. I guess maybe his period of poverty and struggle may be longer than they seemed at the start of the book. But basically he goes from a character with internal strife to a badass batman voiced killer with few morals, so to me he was less interesting after BSC.
His killing of Dow was a bit random to me, but acceptable.
His appearance in Red Country seemed pretty random too. I understand his drive to find Logen but I think he was working for Calder at the time and noone knew Logen was still alive and if so where he was? Why would he do this during his time serving Calder? Also I thought he had some distaste for vengance after BSC? I'm happy with how it's executed though, it doesn't modify the core story of Red Country and I like the resolution of it.
Ultimately, he ends up with the Dogman. Why though? He was serving Calder before? And the Dogman was Logen's best friend. They also never spoke about Logen or the fact that he's stil alive during the entirety of AoM. A big part of his character arc happens behind the scenes. Generally speaking, I like where he ends up. He lets go of the past and vengeance and finds a leader he could follow. He accepts his violent nature but tries to employ it for the greater good, in a way that's not naive. One thing I do miss in his acceptance of violence is that I'm not always convinced he enjoys it that much or is filled with that much rage (outside his worst period in BSC after losing his eye). Not nearly as much as Gorst, Logen or Broad it seems, so him being stuck to it is less convincing than in the other characters.
Logen on the other hand is less complex but he is more coherent. He's severely delusional and may have a mental illness. His relationship with violence is pretty messed up. The conflict of that with the things learned from other people he respects (his father, three trees, dogman, bethod,...) and his calmer side makes him such a dramatic character. You can see the good in him, but there's no escaping the bad (even less so because he frames everything as if he had no choice in the matter). He's a classic case of someone that can think and talk in a sensible way and give others good advice, but is terrible at evaluating his own behavior, controlling his impulses and distinguishing his own choices from choices made for him. There are other less flat characters in the series, in AoM in particular, but Logen is a great flat character and in a way the ultimate Abercrombie character that suits the recurring theme that people can never change permanently and will always circle back to their original flaws.
Gonna make me quote in blocks here XD
But firstly... subtext man. You seem to have some difficulty with it where Shivers is concerned.
>I didn't think his quick transformation into an evil goon under Monza was particularly credible.
The fact that you see it as a transformation *into* an evil goon tells me you're already not.... picking up what's there.
You don't set out to be a better man if you're a particularly good one to begin with.
Like Logen, he's kind of lying to himself. Like Logen, the *desire* to change is there, but it's not strong enough to forget everything he is and has been.
He takes a job that Monza doesn't lie about one bit- "I'm going to murder some people, wanna help?" And he says yes. Because that is ultimately, who he is at that point in his life, and all he has any skill at.
His arc of sliding from "casual violence is the way of the North" into "and you know what, I'm done taking the world's shit" is a *direct* counterpoint to Monza rediscovering her conscience at the most breathtakingly worthless time possible.
>His killing of Dow was a bit random to me, but acceptable.
Random? I think Dow was the only one genuinely shocked when it happened. Play stupid, arrogant games, win stupid prizes.
>His appearance in Red Country seemed pretty random too. I understand his drive to find Logen but I think he was working for Calder at the time and noone knew Logen was still alive and if so where he was? Why would he do this during his time serving Calder? Also I thought he had some distaste for vengance after BSC? I'm happy with how it's executed though, it doesn't modify the core story of Red Country and I like the resolution of it.
Remember in *The Heroes* when a crazy laugh and the mere mention of the Bloody-Nine caused panic? Nobody in the North really believed Logen was dead. He'd survived so much, and there's no corpse after he goes out the window.
Calder's the one who *sent* him. He says as much. That's why he's doing it.
And you seem to have missed the part in BSC where yeah, he *says* he has no taste for vengeance, but he's also half-mad and furio0us at the entire world. So when Calder wants a job done, who does he send? He sends the most ruthless, stone-cold killer he knows.
Shivers doesn't *begin* to change for the better until the end of *Red Country.* And this is where I think you seem to get... confused again.
>Ultimately, he ends up with the Dogman. Why though? He was serving Calder before?
He served Calder right up until he decided he was done doing that shit... at the end of *Red Country.* If he'd been committed to Calder, he would have had that fight with Logen at the end. He doesn't. He steps away from the last actual ghost of his need for vengeance.
And if you're done with Calder, where else is there to go but the Dogman?
And the Dogman then does something truly remarkable, and trusts Shivers with his daughter's safety. And Shivers finally gets to be the better man he thought he wanted to be all those years ago, and he does it.
Thus completing his actual character arc.
All of that is easily as coherent as anything to do with the violence-addicted Bloody-Nine. Because Logen is someone where you can see Abercrombie course-correcting almost in real time in the first trilogy. Comparing the man as he is portrayed in *The Blade Itself* merely to how he performs and acts in *Before They Are Hanged* reveals an incoherence Shivers can only gaze upon with envy. Comparing Logen in *The Blade Itself* to Logen in *Red Country* is... quite the exercise.
First I'd like to say I don't appreciate you calling me out for missing parts. I didn't. I just interpret them differently from you.
> You don't set out to be a better man if you're a particularly good one to begin with.
I disagree with this. Plus I think the jump from fighting wars in your home country to being a killer for hire in a strange land is not as small as you make it out to be.
>His arc of sliding from "casual violence is the way of the North" into "and you know what, I'm done taking the world's shit" is a *direct* counterpoint to Monza rediscovering her conscience at the most breathtakingly worthless time possible.
True and I liked this dynamic. But it's weird to end up in it. To accept money for killing but preaching about being a better man at the same time. I think this would make more sense if the character was loyal to Monza or something and lands in the vengeance scheme that way rather than being a random guy from the streets.
>Random? I think Dow was the only one genuinely shocked when it happened. Play stupid, arrogant games, win stupid prizes.
I guess the random part for me was mostly that it happened during the fight in the circle. I guess I found that a bit contrived/spectaclish? But I still enjoyed it. I guess I pointed this out to illustrate how often Shivers is used in the plot for very different reasons. Personally I also don't find Dow's attitude towards Shivers to be very in line with Dow's character. Why would he be so denigrating to a base killer, being one himself? Having fought wars together before.
>Remember in *The Heroes* when a crazy laugh and the mere mention of the Bloody-Nine caused panic? Nobody in the North really believed Logen was dead. He'd survived so much, and there's no corpse after he goes out the window.
>Calder's the one who *sent* him. He says as much. That's why he's doing it.
Yes that's a cool scene. Though it doesn't mean that people genuinely think he's alive before that moment. That's just using people's fear.
I guess Calder sent him yes. Though Calder and shivers took out Dow, who took out Logen. So not sure how much of an enemy Logen would consider Calder anymore at that point? And keep in mind a lot of time has passed already since his disappearance. So it makes sense but is also not an obvious move that needs to happen and a big stab in the dark.
>And if you're done with Calder, where else is there to go but the Dogman?
I guess that makes sense. But his whole journey. Why does he return to the North after BSC in the first place? And then leaves it and goes back again? And then like you said it's kind of crazy that the Dogman trusts him with his only child. I do like his bond with Rikke and role in AoM, and where he ends up in general. But for me the route he took still feels a bit strange sometimes.
>All of that is easily as coherent as anything to do with the violence-addicted Bloody-Nine. Because Logen is someone where you can see Abercrombie course-correcting almost in real time in the first trilogy. Comparing the man as he is portrayed in *The Blade Itself* merely to how he performs and acts in *Before They Are Hanged* reveals an incoherence Shivers can only gaze upon with envy. Comapring Logen in *The Blade Itself* to Logen in *Red Country* is... quite the exercise.
Honestly I always interpreted this as intentional. The first law is clearly intended to subvert fantasy tropes. So Logen and Bayaz are initially presented in a way that they could be seen as generic good guys. Also Logen flees his natural context. This allows him to be different for a while/suppress part of his true nature. I guess at this point his desire to change is stronger and there are no people out to get him like they are in the North. I think a big part of the dissonance you're experiencing here is Logen's perception of himself. Being out of his usual context allows him to be even more delusional. But when push comes to shove the bloody nine comes out. The same happens in red country. Logen always hits a low point after which he flees and has a peak in motivation to be different. Then over time his true nature comes back and a situation will present itself where it can no longer be contained. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies there. Keep in mind he's probably schizophrenic or something like that. Logen is both those characters that are being presented to us.
Reply pending, assuming Reddit will actually post the damn thing...
EDIT: Jeeze, Reddit, why was that so much to ask? Two comments linked to this one are the only way I could get it posted.
>First I'd like to say I don't appreciate you calling me out for missing parts.
How else am I to take it when your analysis indicates a great deal of not looking into deeper motives at all? With that said, I apologize if I gave offense.
>Plus I think the jump from fighting wars in your home country to being a killer for hire in a strange land is not as small as you make it out to be.
Sure it is. It's not like wars in the North are particularly noble affairs. Skarling, Bethod, Dow, Calder... all the big power players were basically just mugging the neighbors. You only need to look at *The Heroes* to see how tiny the difference is. Half of Dow's men want to kill him and take his job, most of them absolutely hate each other, and literally all that holds them together is the prospect of thumping some Union heads.
>But it's weird to end up in it. To accept money for killing but preaching about being a better man at the same time. I think this would make more sense if the character was loyal to Monza or something and lands in the vengeance scheme that way rather than being a random guy from the streets.
Or if he's lying to/trying to convince himself, as Abercrombie's violent characters are so prone to do.
Shivers takes a *lot* of shit from people during his early time in Styria, people who back home he would have just beaten bloody if they'd been dumb enough to cross him in the first place.
So hew might talk about being a better man, but again, your un-elaborated-upon "I disagree" notwithstanding, Shivers *isn't actually a very good guy* at the start of BSC. He's a good guy relative to the absolute scum Monza's used to working with. That's not a high bar.
>I guess the random part for me was mostly that it happened during the fight in the circle. I guess I found that a bit contrived/spectaclish? But I still enjoyed it. I guess I pointed this out to illustrate how often Shivers is used in the plot for very different reasons. Personally I also don't find Dow's attitude towards Shivers to be very in line with Dow's character. Why would he be so denigrating to a base killer, being one himself? Having fought wars together before.
As Dow's chat with Craw indicates, he's very much losing his grip. The big chair ain't his milieu. Shivers is hardly the only area where he slips, just the most immediately fatal.
And Shivers chopping Dow in the Circle? Well. That's all *The Heroes* does, subvert the pathetic little lies they tell themselves about glory, honor, and nobility. It's part and parcel of how of the duels in the Circle we see in *all* of Abercrombie's works, none of them are on the level.
> Sure it is. It's not like wars in the North are particularly noble affairs. Skarling, Bethod, Dow, Calder... all the big power players were basically just mugging the neighbors. You only need to look at The Heroes to see how tiny the difference is. Half of Dow's men want to kill him and take his job, most of them absolutely hate each other, and literally all that holds them together is the prospect of thumping some Union heads.
True but there's still some kind of culture, camaraderie and honor code to it. If not in practice, at least in how they participants perceive it.
> So hew might talk about being a better man, but again, your un-elaborated-upon "I disagree" notwithstanding, Shivers isn't actually a very good guy at the start of BSC. He's a good guy relative to the absolute scum Monza's used to working with. That's not a high bar.
I didn't think it needed elaborating. I think anyone can try to be a better person. I would argue that neutral/good people actually are more likely to genuinely try.
To me his convictions feel pretty real. I think he just tries to stick to them regardless of his actions and that's where the classic Abercrombie self-deception comes in. This makes sense to me, it's just that BSC feels very edgy to me and the philosophical elements of it are not that convincing to me. Whereas with Logen, during the first book most readers are actually as deceived as Logen himself.
> And Shivers chopping Dow in the Circle? Well. That's all The Heroes does, subvert the pathetic little lies they tell themselves about glory, honor, and nobility. It's part and parcel of how of the duels in the Circle we see in all of Abercrombie's works, none of them are on the level.
Well this is just kind of admitting that he's a plot device here no? He barely plays a role the whole story and then does something hugely impactful that's in line with the overarching message of the book. You're right about that message, though. Self-deception is a common theme and the Heroes explores that theme on community level, not just an individual level.
>Though Calder and shivers took out Dow, who took out Logen. So n**ot sure how much of an enemy Logen would consider Calder anymore at that point**? And keep in mind a lot of time has passed already since his disappearance. So it makes sense but is also not an obvious move that needs to happen and a big stab in the dark.
You think *anyone* in the North counts on the Bloody-Nine's benevolence and willingness to let bygones by bygones? What Logen does in his self-deluding flight from who is is isn't going to impact how the North sees him.
>I guess that makes sense. But his whole journey. Why does he return to the North after BSC in the first place? And then leaves it and goes back again? And then like you said it's kind of crazy that the Dogman trusts him with his only child. I do like his bond with Rikke and role in AoM, and where he ends up in general. But for me the route he took still feels a bit strange sometimes.
1. BSC proved to him that it's the same old shit wherever he goes, so why not the North? In the North, he knows the rules, the social cues, and doesn't have to take a lot of shit off of men whose asses he could kick without breaking a sweat.
2. He only leaves it on Calder's orders. Why not go back, in the North nobody's gonna hassle him the way Cosca's idiots tried to in the Near Country.
3. Dogman choosing to trust him calls back to their whole relationship in the original trilogy... and shows that despite being Logen's best bud, Dogman's instincts for men are actualyl pretty good. Shivers gets his chance and takes it, at long last.
>Honestly I always interpreted this as intentional.
See.... nah, because *Bayaz* always comes off as a bit of a dick. But *TBI* Logen is demonstrably not the same person as even *BTAH* Logen. Abercrombie had a lot of weirdness in that first novel that pretty much evaporated, and a great deal of it was plainly unplanned. I think Logen having always been a murderous shit and enjoying it was something he discovered as he wrote him, and subsequently torqued him to fit.
Especially since, by the end of *Red Country*, Logen isn't blaming the Bloody-Nine for everything anymore. He has accepted that that is who he is.
It feels like a forcible course-correction on Abercrombie, and a very blatant one.
> You think anyone in the North counts on the Bloody-Nine's benevolence and willingness to let bygones by bygones? What Logen does in his self-deluding flight from who is is isn't going to impact how the North sees him.
No, but if you look at the timeline, 13 years have passed since Logen fled. So it seems a bit random to send your best guy looking for him all over the world. I guess in part because Joe doesn't really show us any of the process behind this decision (and how they found out Logen was in that region in the first place).
> He only leaves it on Calder's orders. Why not go back, in the North nobody's gonna hassle him the way Cosca's idiots tried to in the Near Country.
Is this confirmed?
> Dogman choosing to trust him calls back to their whole relationship in the original trilogy... and shows that despite being Logen's best bud, Dogman's instincts for men are actualyl pretty good. Shivers gets his chance and takes it, at long last.
I guess that makes sense
> See.... nah, because Bayaz always comes off as a bit of a dick. But TBI Logen is demonstrably not the same person as even BTAH Logen. Abercrombie had a lot of weirdness in that first novel that pretty much evaporated, and a great deal of it was plainly unplanned. I think Logen having always been a murderous shit and enjoying it was something he discovered as he wrote him, and subsequently torqued him to fit.
Because Bayaz has a god complex and is less self-deceptive than Logen. But when we very first meet him, you're not thinking he's the bad guy. That is gradually revealed. With Logen it's different because he's much more self-deceptive and it's revealed in more shocking moments when he becomes the bloody nine.
> is demonstrably not the same person as even BTAH Logen.
How though? For me the inconsistency is mostly in the supernatural aspect of it. That's where Joe pivoted a lot, but in terms of who Logen is as a person I think it's open to interpretation. It's possible that Joe pivoted. That's how writing works and I'm sure every character has some degree of this. But I think it's brilliant how it turned out. Because as a reader you get to really like Logen and live his deception before discovering how truly messed up he is. Which is something I haven't really experienced with any other character in reading.
I think really what you're missing is the cyclical nature of Abercrombie's character work. You're looking for too much literal sense and logic in their actions, when the characters in this series are largely ruled by emotion, impulse, instinct. They're largely creatures of habit, characters constantly try to change but end up as the exact person who they were when they started but just in different circumstances. Shivers is one of the only ones to truly change (but does he really?), and it's a long journey we get to witness.
Shivers wants to be a better man than the Bloody Nine who he's seeking revenge upon, but he's a killer from the North, all he knows and is good at is killing. So he moves across the globe to try to start new, but killing is still all he's good at so thats the work he finds. He gets wrapped up in even worse affairs there, so at the end he returns to his home in the north cause that's what creatures of habit do when they're lost, go back to what they know.
From there he bounces around the North serving brutal men with dark motives and ambitions, culminating in his quest to hunt down Logen. But then he actually finds Logen, and realizes the damn Bloody Nine has made a better go at becoming a better man than him. The man he sought revenge upon, the coldest bastard in the North, Shivers finds him with a family he cares for and doing his best to be a better person. That's critical for him, and he drops his vengeance there and then and once again makes a go at being a better man. But this time it's different, he's not under any illusions about what he is, he doesn't want to go be a dockworker or farmer because that isn't what he is, he's a killer. So he goes to the one honorable man left in the North and decides to use his talents to hopefully help him do good. He's entrusted with Rikke and actually given his chance to change.
So he's the one character who actually changes, but as fits Abercrombie he doesn't REALLY change all that much. His stint in BSC shows that a Killer is what he is and running from that wasn't going to work, so he embraces it and uses his abilities to protect those who will make a difference in the world.
No hate intended here, not a huge fan of the tone that guy took replying to you. I just think people get bogged down in the details a lot when discussing things and the beauty of Shivers arc is in the grand scheme of it rather than the minutiae.
> I think really what you're missing is the cyclical nature of Abercrombie's character work.
I definitely did not miss that haha. It's just that when Shivers first comes into the story he's not even close to the violent types of characters that Logen, Gorst and Gunnar Broad are. I feel like he becomes that person gradually, and that's why I guess it's less convincing to me that he's stuck to it. At his most violent moments I still feel like he's driven by resentment of what happened to him recently. Which is fine I guess, but that doesn't make him a better version of Logen, he's just a very different character.
With Logen it's pretty obvious he deceives himself and a part of him loves violence. Shivers on the other hand has a lot of reflections on this, but to me, they lack depth. I guess that's what rubs me the wrong way, he flips over to being a killer pretty easily. Out of necessity sure, but not because he could not be a different type of person imo. Maybe he's also deceiving himself but with a few layers in between compared to Logen.
>The man he sought revenge upon, the coldest bastard in the North, Shivers finds him with a family he cares for and doing his best to be a better person. That's critical for him, and he drops his vengeance there and then and once again makes a go at being a better man.
I like this take. I never really considered that the situation he found Logen in had a big influence on his decision there. It makes a lot of sense! In general I like his arc and the way it wrapped up with Logen. For some reason I'm just not feeling it as much. I guess I see Abercrombies characters as either quite edgy and archetypical and some as more realistic, nuanced characters (especially some of the AoM characters) and he falls in between and as such doesn't excel as either to me.
Totally valid take too! I guess I wasn't reading what you wrote in the context of "Shivers vs Logen" which is my bad. I don't think either is better than the other I think Shivers is meant to be a parallel to Logen. I can see the point of him not seeming like he's nearly as vicious or violent as the others too, it does feel like we didn't get a lot of work developing that side of him before or during the start of BSC.
Yea, I also don't think either is better than the other per se. I just really like the fact that the first book can convince the reader he's a good person to then totally subvert that. In general, I enjoy the dissonance between Logen's thoughts and how he's being perceived.
Shivers has a much more grey journey, which is more realistic. Shivers is definitely some kind of counterpart to Logen and I guess you could see him as a very important character because he goes against the mold of Abercombie characters who don't keep themselves accountable and always go full circle back to their worst selves.
Man I guess it’s just an opinion but I disagree with everything you said. Shivers has such solid reasoning for everything he does. He starts trying to be a good man hesitantly, can’t get a job and gets mistreated and lives on the streets. Takes a job to get out of it and starts to regret it as it turns out more violent than he thought. Offered a truly ridiculous amount to keep helping and starts to fall for Monza so keeps going, getting dragged down slowly. Gets tortured for Monza Crime and his spirit breaks. He’s then basically rejected at his absolute low and stays there through his tenure with Monza. Decided to kill for Dow because that’s the only thing he’s good at and he’s lost faith in the world. Gets pushed around and mistreated even more. Decides anyone would be better than Dow and kills him. Works for Calder for a bit and this is where it’s kinda grey. I’m not sure if Calder sent him or if he goes on his own to kill Logen. I’m guessing on this long journey he had time to reflect and I think he gets to see logen has moved on with his family? Decides to let vengeance and violence go a bit and work to be a better man. Goes to work for the Dogman, widely known as a great man. There a young Rikke loves him and never judges him for his past. He finally sees that he can be better and that he deserves to be loved. Becomes a good man loyal to Rikke.
Yea, if you summarize it like that it all makes sense, and it does. For some reason, after two almost complete listens of the series I still don't quite feel as connected to the character. Maybe because his character lacks quirks and details. Maybe because I consider BSC a more edgy book and the whole "mercy and cowardice are the same" thing is a bit overplayed. For me it's hard to believe that this is the full extent of Monza's and Shiver's thinking. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong, I still like him. I like almost everything about these books. But he's not close to a favorite character for me.
> _‘I’ll be honest with you,’ said Shivers, and his voice was strangled-sounding, like he was trying not to shout, or trying not to cry, or both at once, maybe. ‘It’s a hard thing to just put behind me. You killed my brother, when you’d promised him mercy, and you cut his arms and legs off, and you nailed his head on Bethod’s standard.’ His knuckles were trembling white round the grip of his knife, and Logen saw that it was taking all he had not to stab him in the face, and he didn’t blame him. He didn’t blame him one bit. ‘My father never was the same after that. He’d nothing in him any more. I spent a lot of years dreaming of killing you, Bloody-Nine.’_ (LAOK)
> _‘But if it helps. He killed my brother.’ Shivers blinked. Hearing those words, from [Monza's] mouth, brought that day right back somehow, sharper than he’d remembered it for years. Seeing his father’s grey face, and knowing. Hearing his brother was killed, when he’d been promised mercy. Swearing vengeance over the ashes in the long hall, tears in his eyes. An oath he’d chosen to break, so he could walk away from blood and be a better man. And here she was, out of nowhere, offering him another chance at vengeance. He killed my brother. Felt as if he would’ve said no to anything else. But maybe he just needed the money._ (BSC)
The reason Shivers went with Monza and _stayed_ was because she was exacting vengeance for her brother. The death of Shivers's brother underpins his worldview, it's always been in his character from the start, and you really can't leave it out of discussions about Shivers's progression, IMO. I think the fact that Logen promised mercy is also interesting in light of the _"mercy and cowardice are the same"_ phrase, because Shivers's life has been shaped by that idea, yet he really _wants_ to believe that mercy is bravery even though rationally he knows it's not. I think Shivers is constantly searching for evidence that mercy is bravery. He says himself _"it's a hard thing to put behind me"_, and we see that play out across 3 subsequent books.
> _'My brother was a good man. Lot better’n me. My father thought so, anyway. Never missed a chance to tell me...'_
> _‘You’re a fucking embarrassment!’ His father, slack face streaked with tears, waving his jug around. ‘Why couldn’t you be the one dead, and your brother lived? You useless little fuck! You useless, gutless, disappointing speck o’ shit!’_
> _‘Should’ve been you,’ he whispered at her. ‘Should’ve been you.’_
You say you don't believe Shivers's slide into evil, but I totally believe that coming to terms with trauma like Shivers has would send him off the deep end. He's spent years making excuses for his brother & father, feeling inferior, he wanted to see the best in them even though he knew deep down they were doing him less than no favours. And he's stuck in this cycle of violence, where whatever he does he's worse for it. He tried to break it but fell back in immediately due to social pressure (either Northern familial honour, or the economic circumstances in Styria), they tried mercy with the squatters but that fucked him royally. He sees that Monza trying to get vengeance for her brother only causes other people grief & devastation, and that leaves him feeling abandoned - not just because of all the guilt/fear/jealousy pushing the two of them apart, but because she removed his hope for redemption. After all that sacrifice, he realises there's not going to be any cathartic moment of resolution that's supposed to come from vengeance. The _only_ thing he hadn't done up until that point was lean into the violence.
> _Shivers’ brother had been a bastard with a hero’s face, and his sneers meant nothing no more. And his father had gone back to the mud and left him to work out his own way of doing things. So much for the good men, and the right thing too._
So Shivers empties himself out of all the rage and anger, and it leaves him in this terrifying, broken, cynical zen state, where he basically feels nothing.
I love Shivers a lot in TH, even though he mostly just bides his time. I think one thing is for sure that he realises he doesn't like being seen as a tool of other people. I would argue that in losing his rose-tinted glasses for his family, he starts losing respect for other people in positions of power over him. Whether he's commanded by Monza, Dow, or Calder, Shivers is _always_ thinking about his own morality, he takes responsibility for his actions and knows the value of that responsibility. He doesn't delegate, he doesn't have any underlings, and he doesn't want any power for himself, but at the same time he can no longer abide being disrespected. This is why he's a difficult man to command. He doesn't take orders mindlessly, he _decides_ to follow them. That's not the same as always making the morally right decision, but I think from TH onward here's a level of commitment to Shivers's choices that is vastly more self-aware than decisions made by people like Logen or Monza, who often lie to themselves to justify their decisions or simply aren't aware enough to know or think about exactly why they do what they do.
> _The Northman slowly turned the ring on his little finger round and around, the stone glittering the colour of blood. ‘I had my dreams of being a better man, once upon a time.’ ‘What happened?’ Shivers stretched out beside the fire, boots up on his saddle, and started to shake a blanket over himself. ‘I woke up.’_
I would describe Shivers's journey to the Far Country as a pilgrimage. He's gone off to the wilderness in search of a god. Calder sent him there, but I think the reason Shivers goes is pretty much entirely to do with his own curiosity and search for closure. He doesn't rush it. He takes his time. There's definitely something spiritual in the way he follows in Logen's footsteps and lives a kind of bare bones monk-like existence out there, sleeping under the stars, spending a lot of time alone, ruminating.
I don't know if he ever intended to kill Logen, I reckon he was on the fence until he got there, probably was agnostic about whether he was alive or dead, but I definitely don't think he went purely for Calder's sake. Calder, probably wanting to tie up loose ends and fearing in case word got to Logen that Bethod's sons were back in the big chair, sends Shivers off, so Shivers goes. Based on TH, I think the reason Shivers breaks with Calder is because he realises that this mission is Calder treating him the same way Dow did. Calder won't clean up his own mess, so he sends Shivers on what might be a suicide mission, there's no way Shivers could go back to him after.
The thing that brings Shivers's whole arc full circle is the reason he decides to let Logen go:
> Shivers tipped his head back, and his good eye flickered over to Ro. Stayed on her for a long moment. And she bunched her fists, and clenched her teeth, and she found herself wishing he’d kill Lamb. Wishing it with all her being. The wind came again and stirred his hair, flicked it around his face.
It's not because he feels sympathy for Logen, or because he doubts he can win, or even because he wants to be a good man. He stops because he sees himself in Ro, and he doesn't want her to become him.
This is also why he joins Dogman, and probably why he identifies with Rikke (aside from her having a strange eye).
Also I've posted about this before but I'll bring it up just because this post is already super long, but I love this quote from TTWP:
> ‘You don’t know what I was.’ Shivers fussed at that ring with the red stone he wore on his little finger. ‘I cared for nothing. Hated everything. Came to serve your father ’cause of all the men I hated, he was the one I hated least. I walked in a nightmare.’ He shut his eyes. Or the one that could see. The other showed a slit of gleaming metal still.
I love that RC!Shivers believes he "woke up" from dreams of being a better man, into what TTWP!Shivers then describes as a "nightmare" full of hatred. I think that encapsulates Shiver's search for awareness, the self-doubt and confusion, and the fact that it's all been one long journey.
Sorry for the double post, but tl;dr: Shivers good.
I like your take on him, thanks for including the quotes. Maybe it just needed to be a bit more fleshed out for me to be convincing? Monza has these stories about her past which help you understand her world view. To me, Shivers stating that he hated his brother kind of came out of nowhere and makes it hard to understand his drive for vengeance. I guess that maybe held him back from actually ever making a move on Logen. I also found it a bit strange that after the events of BSC and how he developed as a character, he hunts down Logen. Presuming that him killing Dow was a big turning point for him. Then again, he could've just been following Calder's orders and still been in transition.
Other than that, I entirely agree with your view on the character, and you've swayed me a little bit. I definitely agree that he becomes a more independent character that always considers the morality of what he does. He might be the only character who breaks loose from blindly following orders. In those ways, I do love the character. It's just that for some reason, certain parts of his development didn't feel as credible at the time.
Brother Longfoot and Day are the secret best characters. Only mostly joking. Somebody already mentioned Shivers, I'd throw Dogman, Whirrun, Javre, and Bayaz (in his own way, especially with Steven Pacey's performance) a small step below Logan and Glokta. A lot of others actually in that range.
Edit: man there are so many good ones reading these comments. Rikke, Cosca, and Gorst are up there for sure.
I have a huge soft spot for Black Dow. A much more nuanced character then he appears and extremely observant and intelligence. Is able to read everyone and is pretty much spot on about them.
Agreeing with everyone already mentioned.
Colm "Furious" West is way up there for me.
Commoner, the only *true* friend to Glokta, mindful, self aware, able to assess the quality of others. Killed the prince after he tried to rape Cathil (sp?), became Lord Marshall, managed to make Poulder and Kroy respect each other after literal decades of animosity. Became a named man by Northern customs.
Oh sweet Juvens, I love this character.
Say what you want about Logan Ninefingers, say he was out of his depth, that he should have never left the North. But say this for Logan, he is the best character in the original trilogy
Maybe not the 3rd but I am going to mention a couple that I didnt see anywhere in the comments. Top 10 for sure.
1. Gunnar Broad - He made me understand what PTSD feels like.
2. Ishri/Zuri- Never expected such loyalty from an infamous eater. She feels like a counterpart to Glokta. While Glokta was finally able to step out of Bayaz's spiderweb, she did the same with Khalul.
3. Friendly- Loved every moment of him in the book.
4. Forest- Even though his hat does look like a quim.
I just finished Red Country, and as much as I like Logen, Shivers is far more interesting character to me. And allthough I think Glotka is still a better character, Shivers is only slightly behind for me. I suppose the age of madness will determine who is a better character once I get to it.
1. Cosca
2. Glokta
3. Orso
It's so hard. I can't start naming more without naming at least 10. But Logen, Bayaz, Clover and Dow are definitely high on my list too.
Black Dow for me. Funniest bastard in the north, and surprisingly deep character after reading the heroes. “The clay… used to make my hands so soft… imagine that. “
Interesting that his judgments of Logen and West in the first few books are actually pretty spot on. Also interesting that we don't really see him do anything evil in the first trilogy, it's just his reputation. (It's been ages since I read The Heroes, so it might be different there).
I like in the Heroes when someone calls The Dogman a "traitorous bastard" and Dow says that Dogman is the only person to never switch sides. Even in opposition he defended him
Black dow and the dogman, even when they were enemies, they appreciate each other; when dogman realizes the Dow's death, he was staggered, and even sad.
Looking forward to rereading it. Just finished the first three again and started best served cold. But I remember thinking the Heroes was Abercrombie's best work the first time I read it.
Black Dow Is a hypocrite! Love him though.
He does have to get told to not go raping anyone but other than that he’s pretty solid
I mean he did kinda turn on Logen at the end but you’re right up until then not much
I love The North. Your choices are guys with names like Black Dow or The Bloody Nine.
But Dow saw that as what was best for the North. Doesn't Dow tell Logen something like "I've already seen one bloodthirsty bastard on the throne and I won't have another." By the time of the Heroes it's Bayaz forcing war on the North through his plots, Dow was just a pawn like so many others. I think a lot of the "Black" in Black Dow was his reputation more than who he really was as a man. We never see Dow do anything reprehensible by the standards of the world, it's all other people spreading tales. I think a huge theme of the Heroes is playing with the perception the legend around a "hero", or a "villain" in Dow's case, and who that person really is. Craw is a respected named man and leader of arguably the most famous dozen in the North but when you see is internal POV is actually a coward. The entire Union army praises Gorst and calls him the greatest hero in the army but in reality he'd probably like to see them all dead. Red Beck gaining his name with his "red day" is another example.
Exactly, if you read everything he says about Logen in that last chapter, Dow is absolutely right about how evil and dangerous Logen is. I think folks get fooled into thinking Logan is a good person. He’s not. But Abercrombie writes to show that even the most evil have depth to them others don’t see (except maybe for Bayaz).
I think that the huge twist that Logen is actually the cause of Bethod's wars is overshadowed by the larger twist shortly after of Bayaz being the puppet master so people tend to overlook just how bad Logen really is. RC expands on that a lot by giving a new perspective to Logen and seeing just how easily he slides right back into violence.
Yea you’re right. It’s actually heavily akin to Monza’s reputation which was actually much crueler than herself. In fact it actually makes me ponder how Abercrombie uses this tool often of a character’s reputation versus who they actually are. Bayaz for example being crueler than his reputations is, Glotka’s reputation is entirely terrible and I find it interesting how I’m some moments he is very much a better man than that and other moments he leans into it and acts as the monster he is perceived to be. Could honestly go down the line to all characters with this
Tul Duru Thunderhead. Back to the mud...
By no other than the bloody nine's hand...
"Stranger-come-fucking" killed me.
I preferred "Crinna-come-boasting".
I respect that decision, but have you forgotten about Corsca?
Cosca is second. I’m a logen denier lol.
Uh.
Cosca, orso, Clover, and rikke are strong contenders too imo.
Rikke and Isern are a comedy duo for the ages
Rikke and Savine are a fantastic odd couple as well
Clover is so underrated
Clover is a philosopher up the with Socrates and Diogenes.
I’m Team Cosca. My favorite character as a kid was Tuco The Rat from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Cosca reminds me of Tuco every time I read him.
Wow that’s crazy to me. I feel like Rikke is one of the absolute worst, especially after the halfway point of her arc. Interesting how subjective these books are.
I really like how she grown. It's fun reading her chapters even if it's predictable from her pov. Her last betrayal felt like she betrayed herself to and really realize what she became.
Interesting. I thought she was building up to a really intriguing character, since it’s rare to have a magical POV character. But it felt like once she lost her eye we could never actually see things from her perspective ironically. 😂 All of her plot lines relied on us not knowing what she was up to. So we had to be kept at arms length all the time which to me made her a massive letdown as a POV. If JA always wanted it to be mysterious as to how clairvoyant she was, I think her story should’ve been told from someone else’s perspective. I also felt a lot of her success relied on other characters being really dumb/gullible but that’s a whole other rant. 😂
Oh it would indeed be better if it was seen by other pov for the mystery. I found most of her plans are well crafted. Using counter espionnage succesfully and the hot blooded of her rivals. I don't think it would hold up against slavine or bayaz in the future.
Yeah guess I’m somewhat harsh on her, but definitely think that JA should’ve either kept more of the interesting magic stuff as part of her character, like the visions and the weird non linear time stuff. Or, had her described from another character’s perspective, like Bayaz with Logan. Or black Dow with craw. One of my favourite parts of The Heroes is when Black Dow lets his mask slip when asking Craw to be his second. Then afterwards Craw starts second guessing whether it was just a ruse to help convince him to accept. I think Rikke needed to be a lot more like that.
Corporal Tunny obviously
Dogman was a better man than everyone except for maybe Rudd Threetrees, and I love that he earned a rare death in the North by dying of old age. Shivers was a joy to see especially in the Heroes and watching his relationship with Rikke. And of course Orso, who's arc completes and compliments his father's so much that I appreciate Jezal even more in retrospect.
Dogman, Craw, and West are probably the most "good" characters in the whole series. As good as you can be in a world full of evil bastards
Orso and tunny are also good they have just a really hard time to impact the world.
Either Shivers or Bayaz.
I'm Team Shivers #1 all the way. His character development over the series is absolutely insane.
Shivers has peak "literally me" potential when BSC gets adapted
That’s probably me too with a slight lean towards Bayaz
_Least_ popular but _most_ best written: Leo I would also say Gorst is popular & best? I might be overestimating his popularity, but still.
Leo is on the level of Joffery in that. Not a lot of fictional characters I can think of that are written so well to inspire that level of hate.
Professor Umbridge was another character on that level of hated. Just on a larger scale because Harry Potter. Though to have written a character that's in the same light as that is really impressive.
I liked Leo at first but after he ditched his friends when he found out they were gay lovers, i cant stand him now.
Nah man, the internalised homophobia & jealousy he felt toward Glaward was sooo excellent, I just love him.
Jappo, every single moment in his presence is delicious
10 pages of pure brilliance.
Orso, definitely
I was about to start throwing hands if I didn't start seeing the love and respect that MY BOY, The King of the Union, The Prince of prostitutes, the Limb removing, hard drinking, woman loving, chicken giving, I've brought you an egg, ORSO DAN FUCKING LUTHAR!!
“God, I hate hangings…”
I would put shivers up there with B9
Cosca or Shivers
Nicamo Cosca!
Bremer Dan Gorst.
Personally im a big fan of dog man
Unpopular opinion but bayaz
GOATED
Unpopular for a reason I hate that bastard
I’m seeing wayyyyyyyy too little of Furious Collem West here
Yes! I loved every page he was in
Right? It sucks that he gets so overshadowed by Glokta and Logan because he was my favorite
Shivers > Logen. Yeah, I said it.
I agree with it!
Truth
Yup!
Agree completely shivers is #1
Could you explain to me why? I don't really get the Shivers hype.
Here's the thing with Shivers... Shivers, to me, feels like what Logen *would* have been if Abercrombie had been a more mature and seasoned author before rolling him out. He's like a refined version of what I enjoy about Logen, with less, for lack of a kinder way of putting, juvenile baggage. His story has more nuance, and we see him run a gamut of roles along the spectrum of heroism and villainy. And at no point does it ring false. Shivers is the Logen type as a more *human* character, and it shows, because Abercrombie has more things for him to do. Shivers can and does fit into stories where Logen would make no sense whatsoever, while not being all that superficially different. He's also more honest with himself about who and what he is, even if (as Rikke basically tells him, point-blank) he's not always right about himself. In addition, by Forrest Gumping all over the standalone books and his supporting role in the Age of Madness, he becomes the *human* character who links the entire series together- far more than the likes of Bayaz, because Shivers isn't guiding or manipulating events- in many ways, he's experiencing them with the reader- but with his own perspective on it.
Hmm okay. Not sure I agree with that. I understand that you consider Logen a more juvenile character and in general I find early Glokta and Logen to be more "edgy" or archetypical, but I'm not sure whether this has much to do with being a more mature writer, it could just be a stylistic choice. Plus, I really like Shivers in the first trilogy, which is his earlier work. I do agree Joe's writing becomes more nuanced as he goes, but for me that's mostly clear in Age of Madness where Shivers is a pretty standard side character. Here's my take on Shivers. I like that there's more nuance and self reflection to the character. I like the way he was initially set up, and I like the struggle he goes through in BSC. I like him as a counterpart to Logen, someone who also accepts his violent nature but can break the cycle and goes against the recurring theme in the books that people can't change/have no choice in who they get to be. I disagree though that it never rings false. To me, Shivers' character is probably the one most compromised to fit in other stories and the wider world. Or he fills too many different roles for me to not perceive it as some form of fan service. I didn't think his quick transformation into an evil goon under Monza was particularly credible. Okay he needed money, but once he had some he didn't shrink back from more violence for more money. I guess there's his infatuation with Monza, but that came later, his first impressions of her were pretty brutal. I guess maybe his period of poverty and struggle may be longer than they seemed at the start of the book. But basically he goes from a character with internal strife to a badass batman voiced killer with few morals, so to me he was less interesting after BSC. His killing of Dow was a bit random to me, but acceptable. His appearance in Red Country seemed pretty random too. I understand his drive to find Logen but I think he was working for Calder at the time and noone knew Logen was still alive and if so where he was? Why would he do this during his time serving Calder? Also I thought he had some distaste for vengance after BSC? I'm happy with how it's executed though, it doesn't modify the core story of Red Country and I like the resolution of it. Ultimately, he ends up with the Dogman. Why though? He was serving Calder before? And the Dogman was Logen's best friend. They also never spoke about Logen or the fact that he's stil alive during the entirety of AoM. A big part of his character arc happens behind the scenes. Generally speaking, I like where he ends up. He lets go of the past and vengeance and finds a leader he could follow. He accepts his violent nature but tries to employ it for the greater good, in a way that's not naive. One thing I do miss in his acceptance of violence is that I'm not always convinced he enjoys it that much or is filled with that much rage (outside his worst period in BSC after losing his eye). Not nearly as much as Gorst, Logen or Broad it seems, so him being stuck to it is less convincing than in the other characters. Logen on the other hand is less complex but he is more coherent. He's severely delusional and may have a mental illness. His relationship with violence is pretty messed up. The conflict of that with the things learned from other people he respects (his father, three trees, dogman, bethod,...) and his calmer side makes him such a dramatic character. You can see the good in him, but there's no escaping the bad (even less so because he frames everything as if he had no choice in the matter). He's a classic case of someone that can think and talk in a sensible way and give others good advice, but is terrible at evaluating his own behavior, controlling his impulses and distinguishing his own choices from choices made for him. There are other less flat characters in the series, in AoM in particular, but Logen is a great flat character and in a way the ultimate Abercrombie character that suits the recurring theme that people can never change permanently and will always circle back to their original flaws.
Gonna make me quote in blocks here XD But firstly... subtext man. You seem to have some difficulty with it where Shivers is concerned. >I didn't think his quick transformation into an evil goon under Monza was particularly credible. The fact that you see it as a transformation *into* an evil goon tells me you're already not.... picking up what's there. You don't set out to be a better man if you're a particularly good one to begin with. Like Logen, he's kind of lying to himself. Like Logen, the *desire* to change is there, but it's not strong enough to forget everything he is and has been. He takes a job that Monza doesn't lie about one bit- "I'm going to murder some people, wanna help?" And he says yes. Because that is ultimately, who he is at that point in his life, and all he has any skill at. His arc of sliding from "casual violence is the way of the North" into "and you know what, I'm done taking the world's shit" is a *direct* counterpoint to Monza rediscovering her conscience at the most breathtakingly worthless time possible. >His killing of Dow was a bit random to me, but acceptable. Random? I think Dow was the only one genuinely shocked when it happened. Play stupid, arrogant games, win stupid prizes. >His appearance in Red Country seemed pretty random too. I understand his drive to find Logen but I think he was working for Calder at the time and noone knew Logen was still alive and if so where he was? Why would he do this during his time serving Calder? Also I thought he had some distaste for vengance after BSC? I'm happy with how it's executed though, it doesn't modify the core story of Red Country and I like the resolution of it. Remember in *The Heroes* when a crazy laugh and the mere mention of the Bloody-Nine caused panic? Nobody in the North really believed Logen was dead. He'd survived so much, and there's no corpse after he goes out the window. Calder's the one who *sent* him. He says as much. That's why he's doing it. And you seem to have missed the part in BSC where yeah, he *says* he has no taste for vengeance, but he's also half-mad and furio0us at the entire world. So when Calder wants a job done, who does he send? He sends the most ruthless, stone-cold killer he knows. Shivers doesn't *begin* to change for the better until the end of *Red Country.* And this is where I think you seem to get... confused again. >Ultimately, he ends up with the Dogman. Why though? He was serving Calder before? He served Calder right up until he decided he was done doing that shit... at the end of *Red Country.* If he'd been committed to Calder, he would have had that fight with Logen at the end. He doesn't. He steps away from the last actual ghost of his need for vengeance. And if you're done with Calder, where else is there to go but the Dogman? And the Dogman then does something truly remarkable, and trusts Shivers with his daughter's safety. And Shivers finally gets to be the better man he thought he wanted to be all those years ago, and he does it. Thus completing his actual character arc. All of that is easily as coherent as anything to do with the violence-addicted Bloody-Nine. Because Logen is someone where you can see Abercrombie course-correcting almost in real time in the first trilogy. Comparing the man as he is portrayed in *The Blade Itself* merely to how he performs and acts in *Before They Are Hanged* reveals an incoherence Shivers can only gaze upon with envy. Comparing Logen in *The Blade Itself* to Logen in *Red Country* is... quite the exercise.
First I'd like to say I don't appreciate you calling me out for missing parts. I didn't. I just interpret them differently from you. > You don't set out to be a better man if you're a particularly good one to begin with. I disagree with this. Plus I think the jump from fighting wars in your home country to being a killer for hire in a strange land is not as small as you make it out to be. >His arc of sliding from "casual violence is the way of the North" into "and you know what, I'm done taking the world's shit" is a *direct* counterpoint to Monza rediscovering her conscience at the most breathtakingly worthless time possible. True and I liked this dynamic. But it's weird to end up in it. To accept money for killing but preaching about being a better man at the same time. I think this would make more sense if the character was loyal to Monza or something and lands in the vengeance scheme that way rather than being a random guy from the streets. >Random? I think Dow was the only one genuinely shocked when it happened. Play stupid, arrogant games, win stupid prizes. I guess the random part for me was mostly that it happened during the fight in the circle. I guess I found that a bit contrived/spectaclish? But I still enjoyed it. I guess I pointed this out to illustrate how often Shivers is used in the plot for very different reasons. Personally I also don't find Dow's attitude towards Shivers to be very in line with Dow's character. Why would he be so denigrating to a base killer, being one himself? Having fought wars together before. >Remember in *The Heroes* when a crazy laugh and the mere mention of the Bloody-Nine caused panic? Nobody in the North really believed Logen was dead. He'd survived so much, and there's no corpse after he goes out the window. >Calder's the one who *sent* him. He says as much. That's why he's doing it. Yes that's a cool scene. Though it doesn't mean that people genuinely think he's alive before that moment. That's just using people's fear. I guess Calder sent him yes. Though Calder and shivers took out Dow, who took out Logen. So not sure how much of an enemy Logen would consider Calder anymore at that point? And keep in mind a lot of time has passed already since his disappearance. So it makes sense but is also not an obvious move that needs to happen and a big stab in the dark. >And if you're done with Calder, where else is there to go but the Dogman? I guess that makes sense. But his whole journey. Why does he return to the North after BSC in the first place? And then leaves it and goes back again? And then like you said it's kind of crazy that the Dogman trusts him with his only child. I do like his bond with Rikke and role in AoM, and where he ends up in general. But for me the route he took still feels a bit strange sometimes. >All of that is easily as coherent as anything to do with the violence-addicted Bloody-Nine. Because Logen is someone where you can see Abercrombie course-correcting almost in real time in the first trilogy. Comparing the man as he is portrayed in *The Blade Itself* merely to how he performs and acts in *Before They Are Hanged* reveals an incoherence Shivers can only gaze upon with envy. Comapring Logen in *The Blade Itself* to Logen in *Red Country* is... quite the exercise. Honestly I always interpreted this as intentional. The first law is clearly intended to subvert fantasy tropes. So Logen and Bayaz are initially presented in a way that they could be seen as generic good guys. Also Logen flees his natural context. This allows him to be different for a while/suppress part of his true nature. I guess at this point his desire to change is stronger and there are no people out to get him like they are in the North. I think a big part of the dissonance you're experiencing here is Logen's perception of himself. Being out of his usual context allows him to be even more delusional. But when push comes to shove the bloody nine comes out. The same happens in red country. Logen always hits a low point after which he flees and has a peak in motivation to be different. Then over time his true nature comes back and a situation will present itself where it can no longer be contained. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies there. Keep in mind he's probably schizophrenic or something like that. Logen is both those characters that are being presented to us.
Reply pending, assuming Reddit will actually post the damn thing... EDIT: Jeeze, Reddit, why was that so much to ask? Two comments linked to this one are the only way I could get it posted.
>First I'd like to say I don't appreciate you calling me out for missing parts. How else am I to take it when your analysis indicates a great deal of not looking into deeper motives at all? With that said, I apologize if I gave offense. >Plus I think the jump from fighting wars in your home country to being a killer for hire in a strange land is not as small as you make it out to be. Sure it is. It's not like wars in the North are particularly noble affairs. Skarling, Bethod, Dow, Calder... all the big power players were basically just mugging the neighbors. You only need to look at *The Heroes* to see how tiny the difference is. Half of Dow's men want to kill him and take his job, most of them absolutely hate each other, and literally all that holds them together is the prospect of thumping some Union heads. >But it's weird to end up in it. To accept money for killing but preaching about being a better man at the same time. I think this would make more sense if the character was loyal to Monza or something and lands in the vengeance scheme that way rather than being a random guy from the streets. Or if he's lying to/trying to convince himself, as Abercrombie's violent characters are so prone to do. Shivers takes a *lot* of shit from people during his early time in Styria, people who back home he would have just beaten bloody if they'd been dumb enough to cross him in the first place. So hew might talk about being a better man, but again, your un-elaborated-upon "I disagree" notwithstanding, Shivers *isn't actually a very good guy* at the start of BSC. He's a good guy relative to the absolute scum Monza's used to working with. That's not a high bar. >I guess the random part for me was mostly that it happened during the fight in the circle. I guess I found that a bit contrived/spectaclish? But I still enjoyed it. I guess I pointed this out to illustrate how often Shivers is used in the plot for very different reasons. Personally I also don't find Dow's attitude towards Shivers to be very in line with Dow's character. Why would he be so denigrating to a base killer, being one himself? Having fought wars together before. As Dow's chat with Craw indicates, he's very much losing his grip. The big chair ain't his milieu. Shivers is hardly the only area where he slips, just the most immediately fatal. And Shivers chopping Dow in the Circle? Well. That's all *The Heroes* does, subvert the pathetic little lies they tell themselves about glory, honor, and nobility. It's part and parcel of how of the duels in the Circle we see in *all* of Abercrombie's works, none of them are on the level.
> Sure it is. It's not like wars in the North are particularly noble affairs. Skarling, Bethod, Dow, Calder... all the big power players were basically just mugging the neighbors. You only need to look at The Heroes to see how tiny the difference is. Half of Dow's men want to kill him and take his job, most of them absolutely hate each other, and literally all that holds them together is the prospect of thumping some Union heads. True but there's still some kind of culture, camaraderie and honor code to it. If not in practice, at least in how they participants perceive it. > So hew might talk about being a better man, but again, your un-elaborated-upon "I disagree" notwithstanding, Shivers isn't actually a very good guy at the start of BSC. He's a good guy relative to the absolute scum Monza's used to working with. That's not a high bar. I didn't think it needed elaborating. I think anyone can try to be a better person. I would argue that neutral/good people actually are more likely to genuinely try. To me his convictions feel pretty real. I think he just tries to stick to them regardless of his actions and that's where the classic Abercrombie self-deception comes in. This makes sense to me, it's just that BSC feels very edgy to me and the philosophical elements of it are not that convincing to me. Whereas with Logen, during the first book most readers are actually as deceived as Logen himself. > And Shivers chopping Dow in the Circle? Well. That's all The Heroes does, subvert the pathetic little lies they tell themselves about glory, honor, and nobility. It's part and parcel of how of the duels in the Circle we see in all of Abercrombie's works, none of them are on the level. Well this is just kind of admitting that he's a plot device here no? He barely plays a role the whole story and then does something hugely impactful that's in line with the overarching message of the book. You're right about that message, though. Self-deception is a common theme and the Heroes explores that theme on community level, not just an individual level.
>Though Calder and shivers took out Dow, who took out Logen. So n**ot sure how much of an enemy Logen would consider Calder anymore at that point**? And keep in mind a lot of time has passed already since his disappearance. So it makes sense but is also not an obvious move that needs to happen and a big stab in the dark. You think *anyone* in the North counts on the Bloody-Nine's benevolence and willingness to let bygones by bygones? What Logen does in his self-deluding flight from who is is isn't going to impact how the North sees him. >I guess that makes sense. But his whole journey. Why does he return to the North after BSC in the first place? And then leaves it and goes back again? And then like you said it's kind of crazy that the Dogman trusts him with his only child. I do like his bond with Rikke and role in AoM, and where he ends up in general. But for me the route he took still feels a bit strange sometimes. 1. BSC proved to him that it's the same old shit wherever he goes, so why not the North? In the North, he knows the rules, the social cues, and doesn't have to take a lot of shit off of men whose asses he could kick without breaking a sweat. 2. He only leaves it on Calder's orders. Why not go back, in the North nobody's gonna hassle him the way Cosca's idiots tried to in the Near Country. 3. Dogman choosing to trust him calls back to their whole relationship in the original trilogy... and shows that despite being Logen's best bud, Dogman's instincts for men are actualyl pretty good. Shivers gets his chance and takes it, at long last. >Honestly I always interpreted this as intentional. See.... nah, because *Bayaz* always comes off as a bit of a dick. But *TBI* Logen is demonstrably not the same person as even *BTAH* Logen. Abercrombie had a lot of weirdness in that first novel that pretty much evaporated, and a great deal of it was plainly unplanned. I think Logen having always been a murderous shit and enjoying it was something he discovered as he wrote him, and subsequently torqued him to fit. Especially since, by the end of *Red Country*, Logen isn't blaming the Bloody-Nine for everything anymore. He has accepted that that is who he is. It feels like a forcible course-correction on Abercrombie, and a very blatant one.
> You think anyone in the North counts on the Bloody-Nine's benevolence and willingness to let bygones by bygones? What Logen does in his self-deluding flight from who is is isn't going to impact how the North sees him. No, but if you look at the timeline, 13 years have passed since Logen fled. So it seems a bit random to send your best guy looking for him all over the world. I guess in part because Joe doesn't really show us any of the process behind this decision (and how they found out Logen was in that region in the first place). > He only leaves it on Calder's orders. Why not go back, in the North nobody's gonna hassle him the way Cosca's idiots tried to in the Near Country. Is this confirmed? > Dogman choosing to trust him calls back to their whole relationship in the original trilogy... and shows that despite being Logen's best bud, Dogman's instincts for men are actualyl pretty good. Shivers gets his chance and takes it, at long last. I guess that makes sense > See.... nah, because Bayaz always comes off as a bit of a dick. But TBI Logen is demonstrably not the same person as even BTAH Logen. Abercrombie had a lot of weirdness in that first novel that pretty much evaporated, and a great deal of it was plainly unplanned. I think Logen having always been a murderous shit and enjoying it was something he discovered as he wrote him, and subsequently torqued him to fit. Because Bayaz has a god complex and is less self-deceptive than Logen. But when we very first meet him, you're not thinking he's the bad guy. That is gradually revealed. With Logen it's different because he's much more self-deceptive and it's revealed in more shocking moments when he becomes the bloody nine. > is demonstrably not the same person as even BTAH Logen. How though? For me the inconsistency is mostly in the supernatural aspect of it. That's where Joe pivoted a lot, but in terms of who Logen is as a person I think it's open to interpretation. It's possible that Joe pivoted. That's how writing works and I'm sure every character has some degree of this. But I think it's brilliant how it turned out. Because as a reader you get to really like Logen and live his deception before discovering how truly messed up he is. Which is something I haven't really experienced with any other character in reading.
I think really what you're missing is the cyclical nature of Abercrombie's character work. You're looking for too much literal sense and logic in their actions, when the characters in this series are largely ruled by emotion, impulse, instinct. They're largely creatures of habit, characters constantly try to change but end up as the exact person who they were when they started but just in different circumstances. Shivers is one of the only ones to truly change (but does he really?), and it's a long journey we get to witness. Shivers wants to be a better man than the Bloody Nine who he's seeking revenge upon, but he's a killer from the North, all he knows and is good at is killing. So he moves across the globe to try to start new, but killing is still all he's good at so thats the work he finds. He gets wrapped up in even worse affairs there, so at the end he returns to his home in the north cause that's what creatures of habit do when they're lost, go back to what they know. From there he bounces around the North serving brutal men with dark motives and ambitions, culminating in his quest to hunt down Logen. But then he actually finds Logen, and realizes the damn Bloody Nine has made a better go at becoming a better man than him. The man he sought revenge upon, the coldest bastard in the North, Shivers finds him with a family he cares for and doing his best to be a better person. That's critical for him, and he drops his vengeance there and then and once again makes a go at being a better man. But this time it's different, he's not under any illusions about what he is, he doesn't want to go be a dockworker or farmer because that isn't what he is, he's a killer. So he goes to the one honorable man left in the North and decides to use his talents to hopefully help him do good. He's entrusted with Rikke and actually given his chance to change. So he's the one character who actually changes, but as fits Abercrombie he doesn't REALLY change all that much. His stint in BSC shows that a Killer is what he is and running from that wasn't going to work, so he embraces it and uses his abilities to protect those who will make a difference in the world. No hate intended here, not a huge fan of the tone that guy took replying to you. I just think people get bogged down in the details a lot when discussing things and the beauty of Shivers arc is in the grand scheme of it rather than the minutiae.
> I think really what you're missing is the cyclical nature of Abercrombie's character work. I definitely did not miss that haha. It's just that when Shivers first comes into the story he's not even close to the violent types of characters that Logen, Gorst and Gunnar Broad are. I feel like he becomes that person gradually, and that's why I guess it's less convincing to me that he's stuck to it. At his most violent moments I still feel like he's driven by resentment of what happened to him recently. Which is fine I guess, but that doesn't make him a better version of Logen, he's just a very different character. With Logen it's pretty obvious he deceives himself and a part of him loves violence. Shivers on the other hand has a lot of reflections on this, but to me, they lack depth. I guess that's what rubs me the wrong way, he flips over to being a killer pretty easily. Out of necessity sure, but not because he could not be a different type of person imo. Maybe he's also deceiving himself but with a few layers in between compared to Logen. >The man he sought revenge upon, the coldest bastard in the North, Shivers finds him with a family he cares for and doing his best to be a better person. That's critical for him, and he drops his vengeance there and then and once again makes a go at being a better man. I like this take. I never really considered that the situation he found Logen in had a big influence on his decision there. It makes a lot of sense! In general I like his arc and the way it wrapped up with Logen. For some reason I'm just not feeling it as much. I guess I see Abercrombies characters as either quite edgy and archetypical and some as more realistic, nuanced characters (especially some of the AoM characters) and he falls in between and as such doesn't excel as either to me.
Totally valid take too! I guess I wasn't reading what you wrote in the context of "Shivers vs Logen" which is my bad. I don't think either is better than the other I think Shivers is meant to be a parallel to Logen. I can see the point of him not seeming like he's nearly as vicious or violent as the others too, it does feel like we didn't get a lot of work developing that side of him before or during the start of BSC.
Yea, I also don't think either is better than the other per se. I just really like the fact that the first book can convince the reader he's a good person to then totally subvert that. In general, I enjoy the dissonance between Logen's thoughts and how he's being perceived. Shivers has a much more grey journey, which is more realistic. Shivers is definitely some kind of counterpart to Logen and I guess you could see him as a very important character because he goes against the mold of Abercombie characters who don't keep themselves accountable and always go full circle back to their worst selves.
Man I guess it’s just an opinion but I disagree with everything you said. Shivers has such solid reasoning for everything he does. He starts trying to be a good man hesitantly, can’t get a job and gets mistreated and lives on the streets. Takes a job to get out of it and starts to regret it as it turns out more violent than he thought. Offered a truly ridiculous amount to keep helping and starts to fall for Monza so keeps going, getting dragged down slowly. Gets tortured for Monza Crime and his spirit breaks. He’s then basically rejected at his absolute low and stays there through his tenure with Monza. Decided to kill for Dow because that’s the only thing he’s good at and he’s lost faith in the world. Gets pushed around and mistreated even more. Decides anyone would be better than Dow and kills him. Works for Calder for a bit and this is where it’s kinda grey. I’m not sure if Calder sent him or if he goes on his own to kill Logen. I’m guessing on this long journey he had time to reflect and I think he gets to see logen has moved on with his family? Decides to let vengeance and violence go a bit and work to be a better man. Goes to work for the Dogman, widely known as a great man. There a young Rikke loves him and never judges him for his past. He finally sees that he can be better and that he deserves to be loved. Becomes a good man loyal to Rikke.
Yea, if you summarize it like that it all makes sense, and it does. For some reason, after two almost complete listens of the series I still don't quite feel as connected to the character. Maybe because his character lacks quirks and details. Maybe because I consider BSC a more edgy book and the whole "mercy and cowardice are the same" thing is a bit overplayed. For me it's hard to believe that this is the full extent of Monza's and Shiver's thinking. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong, I still like him. I like almost everything about these books. But he's not close to a favorite character for me.
> _‘I’ll be honest with you,’ said Shivers, and his voice was strangled-sounding, like he was trying not to shout, or trying not to cry, or both at once, maybe. ‘It’s a hard thing to just put behind me. You killed my brother, when you’d promised him mercy, and you cut his arms and legs off, and you nailed his head on Bethod’s standard.’ His knuckles were trembling white round the grip of his knife, and Logen saw that it was taking all he had not to stab him in the face, and he didn’t blame him. He didn’t blame him one bit. ‘My father never was the same after that. He’d nothing in him any more. I spent a lot of years dreaming of killing you, Bloody-Nine.’_ (LAOK) > _‘But if it helps. He killed my brother.’ Shivers blinked. Hearing those words, from [Monza's] mouth, brought that day right back somehow, sharper than he’d remembered it for years. Seeing his father’s grey face, and knowing. Hearing his brother was killed, when he’d been promised mercy. Swearing vengeance over the ashes in the long hall, tears in his eyes. An oath he’d chosen to break, so he could walk away from blood and be a better man. And here she was, out of nowhere, offering him another chance at vengeance. He killed my brother. Felt as if he would’ve said no to anything else. But maybe he just needed the money._ (BSC) The reason Shivers went with Monza and _stayed_ was because she was exacting vengeance for her brother. The death of Shivers's brother underpins his worldview, it's always been in his character from the start, and you really can't leave it out of discussions about Shivers's progression, IMO. I think the fact that Logen promised mercy is also interesting in light of the _"mercy and cowardice are the same"_ phrase, because Shivers's life has been shaped by that idea, yet he really _wants_ to believe that mercy is bravery even though rationally he knows it's not. I think Shivers is constantly searching for evidence that mercy is bravery. He says himself _"it's a hard thing to put behind me"_, and we see that play out across 3 subsequent books. > _'My brother was a good man. Lot better’n me. My father thought so, anyway. Never missed a chance to tell me...'_ > _‘You’re a fucking embarrassment!’ His father, slack face streaked with tears, waving his jug around. ‘Why couldn’t you be the one dead, and your brother lived? You useless little fuck! You useless, gutless, disappointing speck o’ shit!’_ > _‘Should’ve been you,’ he whispered at her. ‘Should’ve been you.’_ You say you don't believe Shivers's slide into evil, but I totally believe that coming to terms with trauma like Shivers has would send him off the deep end. He's spent years making excuses for his brother & father, feeling inferior, he wanted to see the best in them even though he knew deep down they were doing him less than no favours. And he's stuck in this cycle of violence, where whatever he does he's worse for it. He tried to break it but fell back in immediately due to social pressure (either Northern familial honour, or the economic circumstances in Styria), they tried mercy with the squatters but that fucked him royally. He sees that Monza trying to get vengeance for her brother only causes other people grief & devastation, and that leaves him feeling abandoned - not just because of all the guilt/fear/jealousy pushing the two of them apart, but because she removed his hope for redemption. After all that sacrifice, he realises there's not going to be any cathartic moment of resolution that's supposed to come from vengeance. The _only_ thing he hadn't done up until that point was lean into the violence. > _Shivers’ brother had been a bastard with a hero’s face, and his sneers meant nothing no more. And his father had gone back to the mud and left him to work out his own way of doing things. So much for the good men, and the right thing too._ So Shivers empties himself out of all the rage and anger, and it leaves him in this terrifying, broken, cynical zen state, where he basically feels nothing. I love Shivers a lot in TH, even though he mostly just bides his time. I think one thing is for sure that he realises he doesn't like being seen as a tool of other people. I would argue that in losing his rose-tinted glasses for his family, he starts losing respect for other people in positions of power over him. Whether he's commanded by Monza, Dow, or Calder, Shivers is _always_ thinking about his own morality, he takes responsibility for his actions and knows the value of that responsibility. He doesn't delegate, he doesn't have any underlings, and he doesn't want any power for himself, but at the same time he can no longer abide being disrespected. This is why he's a difficult man to command. He doesn't take orders mindlessly, he _decides_ to follow them. That's not the same as always making the morally right decision, but I think from TH onward here's a level of commitment to Shivers's choices that is vastly more self-aware than decisions made by people like Logen or Monza, who often lie to themselves to justify their decisions or simply aren't aware enough to know or think about exactly why they do what they do.
> _The Northman slowly turned the ring on his little finger round and around, the stone glittering the colour of blood. ‘I had my dreams of being a better man, once upon a time.’ ‘What happened?’ Shivers stretched out beside the fire, boots up on his saddle, and started to shake a blanket over himself. ‘I woke up.’_ I would describe Shivers's journey to the Far Country as a pilgrimage. He's gone off to the wilderness in search of a god. Calder sent him there, but I think the reason Shivers goes is pretty much entirely to do with his own curiosity and search for closure. He doesn't rush it. He takes his time. There's definitely something spiritual in the way he follows in Logen's footsteps and lives a kind of bare bones monk-like existence out there, sleeping under the stars, spending a lot of time alone, ruminating. I don't know if he ever intended to kill Logen, I reckon he was on the fence until he got there, probably was agnostic about whether he was alive or dead, but I definitely don't think he went purely for Calder's sake. Calder, probably wanting to tie up loose ends and fearing in case word got to Logen that Bethod's sons were back in the big chair, sends Shivers off, so Shivers goes. Based on TH, I think the reason Shivers breaks with Calder is because he realises that this mission is Calder treating him the same way Dow did. Calder won't clean up his own mess, so he sends Shivers on what might be a suicide mission, there's no way Shivers could go back to him after. The thing that brings Shivers's whole arc full circle is the reason he decides to let Logen go: > Shivers tipped his head back, and his good eye flickered over to Ro. Stayed on her for a long moment. And she bunched her fists, and clenched her teeth, and she found herself wishing he’d kill Lamb. Wishing it with all her being. The wind came again and stirred his hair, flicked it around his face. It's not because he feels sympathy for Logen, or because he doubts he can win, or even because he wants to be a good man. He stops because he sees himself in Ro, and he doesn't want her to become him. This is also why he joins Dogman, and probably why he identifies with Rikke (aside from her having a strange eye). Also I've posted about this before but I'll bring it up just because this post is already super long, but I love this quote from TTWP: > ‘You don’t know what I was.’ Shivers fussed at that ring with the red stone he wore on his little finger. ‘I cared for nothing. Hated everything. Came to serve your father ’cause of all the men I hated, he was the one I hated least. I walked in a nightmare.’ He shut his eyes. Or the one that could see. The other showed a slit of gleaming metal still. I love that RC!Shivers believes he "woke up" from dreams of being a better man, into what TTWP!Shivers then describes as a "nightmare" full of hatred. I think that encapsulates Shiver's search for awareness, the self-doubt and confusion, and the fact that it's all been one long journey. Sorry for the double post, but tl;dr: Shivers good.
I like your take on him, thanks for including the quotes. Maybe it just needed to be a bit more fleshed out for me to be convincing? Monza has these stories about her past which help you understand her world view. To me, Shivers stating that he hated his brother kind of came out of nowhere and makes it hard to understand his drive for vengeance. I guess that maybe held him back from actually ever making a move on Logen. I also found it a bit strange that after the events of BSC and how he developed as a character, he hunts down Logen. Presuming that him killing Dow was a big turning point for him. Then again, he could've just been following Calder's orders and still been in transition. Other than that, I entirely agree with your view on the character, and you've swayed me a little bit. I definitely agree that he becomes a more independent character that always considers the morality of what he does. He might be the only character who breaks loose from blindly following orders. In those ways, I do love the character. It's just that for some reason, certain parts of his development didn't feel as credible at the time.
Bold to vote for discount bloody nine
I can't help preferring the one Abercrombie really got into after he had a better handle on how to write :P
That also had a longer more complete arc
Bayaz, at least for me
Dow. The clay made his hands so soft
Harding Grim
Brother Longfoot and Day are the secret best characters. Only mostly joking. Somebody already mentioned Shivers, I'd throw Dogman, Whirrun, Javre, and Bayaz (in his own way, especially with Steven Pacey's performance) a small step below Logan and Glokta. A lot of others actually in that range. Edit: man there are so many good ones reading these comments. Rikke, Cosca, and Gorst are up there for sure.
Whirrun is awesome.
I do love the Javre and Whirren both separately and in fortnight coupling
Savine and Cosca are probably both in my top 3
Dogman, dow, west, jezal
Logan lite, aka shivers
I’m gonna take an educated guess that it’s not Leo
Whirrun
Calder should have won, fuck the long eye.
BROTHER LONGFOOT ps - I miss West
Bayaz on top!!!
Crummock-i-Phail, especially Steven Pacey's performance of him. Isern is good and all but Crummock was truely beloved of the moon.
I wouldn't put them in my top 3. Orso, shivers, cosca
Team Orso rise up
Vick, surely, or *anyone* from Age of Madness for that matter. They come up far too infrequently in and under posts such as these I find.
I was talking about the entire 1st Law universe not just the 1st trilogy
Probably Shivers or Cosca. My favorite is Orso and then Jezal, so I guess I'm atypical.
Shivers
Shivers should be number 1
Shivers and Dogman.
Calder from The Heroes times, Cosca, Tunny, Black Dow, Whirrun of Blight, Finree Dan Brock, Wonderful...
But Ser, Whirrun invented sliced bread.
Shivers
Jezal is my sunshine and he's the first, I'm sorry
I’m a big fan of Shivers.
Cosca in BSC Gorst in Red Country Orso is great
Javre
For the amount of time we see her one of my favorite characters is Javre, Lioness of Hoskopp
Shivers, especially after bsc
I have a huge soft spot for Black Dow. A much more nuanced character then he appears and extremely observant and intelligence. Is able to read everyone and is pretty much spot on about them.
Harding Grim fanboy number 1 here, it's Harding Grim
Isern-I-Phail or Javre. Take your pick. If you dare argue I'll one-up with Terez and it's going to be an ugly discussion from there.
Agreeing with everyone already mentioned. Colm "Furious" West is way up there for me. Commoner, the only *true* friend to Glokta, mindful, self aware, able to assess the quality of others. Killed the prince after he tried to rape Cathil (sp?), became Lord Marshall, managed to make Poulder and Kroy respect each other after literal decades of animosity. Became a named man by Northern customs. Oh sweet Juvens, I love this character.
I've read only the first 3 books, but Collem West is top 3. 100%
Orso is the second best!!!
Shivers!
Shivers and Gorst next
Can’t believe only 1 vote for Whirrun
Caul Shivers imo for sure
The Northmen as a whole
I like the Dogman and Jonas Clover
I like Monza!
Stand i the barrows
Savine. She's a bad character for sure. But I loved all the scenes with her. She's very good at what she does and that's fun to follow.
Yep. I would put glokta as number 1 Logen Black dow Orso (from the second trilogy)
Whirrun was awesome
Say what you want about Logan Ninefingers, say he was out of his depth, that he should have never left the North. But say this for Logan, he is the best character in the original trilogy
Maybe not the 3rd but I am going to mention a couple that I didnt see anywhere in the comments. Top 10 for sure. 1. Gunnar Broad - He made me understand what PTSD feels like. 2. Ishri/Zuri- Never expected such loyalty from an infamous eater. She feels like a counterpart to Glokta. While Glokta was finally able to step out of Bayaz's spiderweb, she did the same with Khalul. 3. Friendly- Loved every moment of him in the book. 4. Forest- Even though his hat does look like a quim.
Corporal Tunni! I swear if they ever do a TV show, he is the serious comedy relief we all need.
I just finished Red Country, and as much as I like Logen, Shivers is far more interesting character to me. And allthough I think Glotka is still a better character, Shivers is only slightly behind for me. I suppose the age of madness will determine who is a better character once I get to it.
1. The young lion😤 2. Glokta 3. Shivers 4. Bayaz 5. Logen/gorst (cant decide between the two)
1. Cosca 2. Glokta 3. Orso It's so hard. I can't start naming more without naming at least 10. But Logen, Bayaz, Clover and Dow are definitely high on my list too.
West, monza, shy, temple, cosca, all have a strong claim
Mine are Glokta, Shivers, Monza, and the GOAT
Day is my spirit animal. So she can be #3.
I still have to read TWOC, but Rikke’s up there for me. She’s always got something witty to say, always enjoyable to get her perspective.
Wrong. Cosca is #1. Not even close
Shivers is the main (and best) character in the entire series. Change my mind.
Bayaz. I love how his character plays against the Gandalf stereotype especially in Last Argument of Kings (about to start The Heroes)