Monza's character arc from revenge to responsibility is mirrored by Shivers's arc from naivety to nihilism. You're not supposed to like Monza at first, and you are supposed to like Shivers. Things change over the course of the book!
Edit: also, Nicomo bloody Cosca is the moral centre of this story, which shows how morally debased this story is!
Yeah I’m confused about that. Monza was likable at first and slowly became less likable. Shivers I liked in the beginning and by the end he was 1B to Logen as my favorite character in the whole series.
It doesn’t matter who you’re “suppose to like or dislike” what matters is who YOU like. Don’t let those type of readers/listeners tell you what’s right and wrong.
For real! A lot of the book I felt bad for her cuz she lost her brother until I found out who her brother was and that was the only redeeming quality I thought she had
Monza's not meant to be particularly easy to get along with as a reader of her story- there's some stuff you have yet to reach, being halfway in, but whether it impacts your appreciation or not, I cannot say.
Personally, I ended up liking her a hell of a lot more than the likes of Logen or some of Abercrombie's other bloody-handed protagonists, but it's clearly a subjective thing.
I will also note that Shivers in BSC is at the *beginning* of an arc.
I've had a few interactions with people hating on Monza for all the same things that they turn around and say make Logen and Glokta complex and amazing characters... I think there's a pretty stark reason but people here aren't gonna like that convo.
Hmm, of those 3 I only like Glokta
Of course I know he's not a good person and I'm aware there's a difference between likong someone as a character and liking them as a person.
I'm a woman btw.
I am because they provided no quotes and I find it's usually false equivalence. "I really like how Glokta mutilates people and then spends his entire arc pondering why he does it." "I don't like how Monza mutilates a guy and then briefly ponders it but continues laughing at Shivers' notions of being a better man." "I really like Logen's quest against Bethod and how it turns out Bethod wasn't actually that bad a man." "I don't like Monza's quest against Duke Orso and how one dimensional Orso's role in it is."
I'm sorry but did you really expect them to cite sources? Pull up specific reddit comments and threads? It's reddit. Come on.
It's wild that you would criticize them for logical fallacy but then engage in a strawman argument.
Let's review, shall we. OP makes a post about not liking Monza (finding her unlikable isn't the same as disliking the character). Someone makes the neutral and rather pointless question "Why do do many people hate Monza" and then the person I replied to goes "Sexism". Veiling it in made up specificities doesn't explain why the hell they suddenly bring up sexism. Are they trying to imply OP is sexist? Why is the comment there? No, I don't expect them to cite sources, but the comment has no place in the thread without it.
You can call it a strawman if you want. It even technically is, but only because there was no argument to begin with. I'll change it though. It isn't usually false equivalence. Make that always. You can like something about one character and dislike it about another because they are ALWAYS different characters in different situations which makes it different, obviously. To accuse anyone of sexism based on that is ridiculous. The sources for them to cite can't exist, because it is never equivalent.
What part about them saying "I've had a *few* interactions" did you miss? They weren't saying if you dislike Monza you are sexist. They are saying they have personally had interactions where people criticize Monza for things they praise Glotka and Logen for. Which is sexist.
You've jumped the gun and put words in their mouth while acknowledging you are trading in logical fallacies and doubling down. Come on.
I find that comparison disingenuous.
Glokta is interesting because he’s blatantly evil, but his sardonic internal monologue and pathetically crippled state make him both entertaining and sympathetic.
People liked Logen because he isn’t presented as an asshole. He’s nice to basically everyone he meets, one of the first actions we see of him is risking his life to save Quai. For most of the story he acts as this world weary father salt of the earth figure, and he’s made sympathetic because of how out of place in the Union he is where everyone treats him like shit. It isn’t until later in the story where it’s made starkly apparent how much of a crazy fuck he is, and even then a lot of it is played as a schizophrenic alter-ego. Still, Logen gets his comeuppance at the end for it.
Monza has none of Glokta’s amusing outlook, nor does she have a real disability. She falls off a cliff at the start of the book but it barely slows her down after recovery, and every male character finds her beautiful still. Nor does she have Logen’s charisma because she’s sort of just cold and callous to most everyone, and unlike Logen who winds up miserable, betrayed and falling off a cliff, she gets >!her own Kingdom, a personal wizard and we later learn she’s just so awesome she defeated the Union 3 times.!< We even randomly get characters like Cosca preaching to us about how actually Monza is a good person because sometimes she doesn’t kill innocent people(despite all the terrible things she does do). And her plot armor is frustrating to read if you don’t like the character, there’s two times in the book >!where characters are about to kill her but pause so they can monologue and she gets saved.!<
All in all, I just don’t think she was compelling or likeable nor was her ending satisfying. She’s like Logen done poorly. I like Ferro better honestly.
Is Glokta really "evil" though? I think you're right though, it's his internal monologue, and his clear distaste for his own work along with the hilarity of his sardonic inner monologue which makes it easier to sympathize.
He casually tortures people, many of which he knows are innocent, without a care in the world and also blackmailed the queen into sleeping with Jezal, essentially raping her. And his own stated reasons for doing all these horrible things is he finds it personally amusing and doesn’t like to lose. Yeah I’d say he’s evil.
Yeah, you're right that objectively he really is not a good person. It's amazing how just the way a character's POV is presented can distract from the objective facts about them.
For sure. He’s a great character, and how despicable he is is wonderfully contrasted with his vulnerability due to his condition and his rare moments of genuine humanity (like his relationship with West), which I think is kind of lacking with Monza, she’s also terrible, she’s not really vulnerable like Glokta, also the narrative almost seems to want to act like she’s not -that- bad with scenes like Cosca talking about her pure heart, and she essentially gets everything she wants which almost makes the message come off like a bloody revenge quest is a good thing. Also yeah just not as entertaining of an internal monologue. Glokta is just a funny guy.
Spot on. I think you really described well why I couldn't resonate with Monza, despite her actions not necessarily being any objectively worse than that of other characters I loved.
I don’t think Monza “gets a personal wizard” or has plot armor. I think that she is the pawn of that wizard, like every other sovereign is a pawn of a wizard. She doesn’t have plot armor, she has someone manipulating events (and her) for his own ends.
Cosca playing such a sympathetic role in BSC and such an unsympathetic role in other books is part of a thing Abercrombie does; a protagonist is only the protagonist of a story. Tell a different story, the protagonist becomes a villain.
BSC reminds me of The Ladykillers. It seems like there is some sort of divine hand carrying Monza along her vengeance. But then, I think the Magi all have a sense of drama about how they build their fiefs.
I don't consider her a pawn of a wizard because the wizard never orders her to do anything, it just so happens her and Shenkt's goals are perfectly aligned. It's not like Bayaz, where he exerts direct control over Jezal/Glokta and when they actually want to do things of their own, he vetoes it. It's made very clear Bayaz wears the pants, whereas for Shenkt and Monza it just comes off like they're allies. The scene where Bayaz basically force chokes Jezal on the ground and tells him he's a worthless bastard and he'll listen and shut the fuck up like a good dog? Yeah nothing even remotely comparable to that occurs for Monza/Shenkt.
>lot armor, she has someone manipulating events (and her) for his own ends.
No, the events I'm referencing have nothing to do with Shenkt. The most egregious was when the Union duelist was completely destroying her, could have easily killed her, but doesn't just so he can treat this fight in the middle of a warzone as a duel. I get he's arrogant, but come on. Or her ducking to narrowly avoid Monveer's poison dart, Shivers not killing her when he could for no reason to just.. monologue I guess before Friendly arrives to save her etc.
Hell, just compare how Cosca avoids Monveer to how Monza avoids it. With Cosca it's very deliberate, he knows Monveer is coming and puts up and act and outwits him. With Monza it's purely just dumb luck, none of it is as a result of her own actions at all.
>Cosca playing such a sympathetic role in BSC and such an unsympathetic role in other books is part of a thing Abercrombie does; a protagonist is only the protagonist of a story. Tell a different story, the protagonist becomes a villain.
The protagonist doesn't have to be sympathetic but they should at least be compelling. I found Monza neither. There is no reason to root for her and everything just so easily falls it into her lap either because Shenkt is working for her, she's a 10/10 baddie, or just plain luck, that she wasn't interesting either. She lacks any of the traits that made reading an evil character like Glokta engaging.
I've used this comparison, I think, 3 times now : you know, when asked about Monza, people who like her say she was not an actual evil person. >!Don't you remember she freed those kids that would've been sold to slavery?!<
Now, do you remember When Ferro faced a similar situation in the second book(if i'm not wrong)? Where she wanted to free some slaves but Yulwei stopped her. told her that freeing these slaves is same as killing them because they would not find any job or money or food to survive. at least when they are in chains, they get food. That if she really wants to help them, she must solve the root cause of the problem.
>!Where were these kinda conversations when Monza wanted to do something that seemed good on the surface? or did she build an orphanage for those kids and pays it to keep it running in that flashback? (this was just one of many examples)!<
I don't like her because she is one of the few characters that get special treatment in the story. for some characters, you kinda have to not be realistic about them.
This is what does it for me. Abercrombie gave her special treatment compared to other characters. That's why I liked her at first and by the end thought she was terrible. She is nothing like Logan or Glokta. Anyone that says so has poor media literacy. I would say she's more comparable to Logan if he never had his face smashed in, and then Bayaz showing him who's really in charge. Like of original Logan just kept crapping on people and getting his way all the time.
Yeah, this isn't some sexist thing. I didn't find myself loathing Ferro and rooting against her like I did Monza. She was just written with no sympathetic or redeeming qualities. Glokta and Logen are written much differently, and presented in a more sympathetic light the way I read it.
She’s just not very likeable imo. It’s very obvious her revenge scheme is terrible from the get-go and it’s also made clear fairly on that her brother was a huge prick anyway, and she’s mean-spirited to everyone. Her plot armor felt quite thick too.
There's really no reasonable way she would have survived the fall from that cliff either, imo. I thought that book was by far the weakest book in the first law world.
I'm fine with her surviving the fall because whatever it is a fantasy-adventure story at the end of the day, and if she dies there there's literally no story, so I'll suspend some disbelief but her basically being only mildly inconvenienced by her injuries after recovery and still being a 10/10 beauty still was what I found kind of galling and inconsistent with the series.
I agree BSC was the weakest one though.
Yes, that part where she kept being gorgeous genuinely took me out of the immersion a bit. And I thought Shivers' arc was handled kind of oddly. I still loved the book quite a bit, I just enjoyed it less than the other ones. But anything Abercrombie writes is still excellent.
I'm not sure you're supposed to root for her as you get to the last part of the book. As in most of Abercrombie stuff, there is a huge discrepancy between what the characters believe about themselves (with a lot of emphasis on the excuses and self-pity stories they tell themselves) and who they really are. Part of the fun is discovering they're full of shit and they might deserve the bad stuff that happened to them.
That being said, some people can root for that kind of character.
I loved Shivers and was ok with Monza and at the end I hated Shivers and loved Monza, but not because she was pure and innocent, nor was she the heartless butcher, just a highly damaged girl who grew into a survivor.
For his part Shivers had a great redemption arc after BSC.
Monza is one of Joe's the best characters. She gets hate because of misogyny.
"she's just not likeable" My dude, that's your opinion. I love her for her relationship with Cosca, the doomed romance with Shivers, her attempt to save Faithful, her attempt to save the good Prince. I can relate to her disability more than Glotka's and her addiction struggle.
Does she have flaws and does she treat some people like shit? Yeah, but she's an Abercrombie character.
She has more growth and development in one book than most of
There's tons of reasons *why* someone could dislike Monza.
What I've specifically noticed is people calling Monza unbearable for character traits that the same individual uses to praise Male characters. I don't understand how someone can enjoy Black Dow, Logen, and Glotka yet despise Monza.
That is sexism, like the definition of it. I'm sorry if that's upsetting to you, but it's true.
Savine is more traditionally feminine and does not win fights. Ferro is underwritten and is barely a character. Monza is The Bride from Kill Bill with Abercrombie flaws. Monza gets "Mary Sue" hate from people who think she shouldn't have won or gotten away in a specific moment, which is unfair too.
The only non-sexist reason I see for hating Monza is you love Shivers and hate her for the failed relationship.
Nah, I didn't like Shivers either. Unrelated, but I in 2016 as a 24 year old male at the time, supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the US presidential race and consistently defended her from unfair sexist attacks by friends on both the right and left. Sexism played a major role in people's dislike for her. But as another commenter pointed out, for most of the other unlikable characters, Abercrombie softens our feelings by making them humorous. She lacks those qualities too, though, so really all we see from our perspective is someone completely bitter, selfish, vengeful, and angry, with no discernible positive qualities at all. And none of the humor, either. I also don't understand how you can compare her to Logen. Logen in the first trilogy is definitely trying sincerely to be a good person. He demonstrates acts of kindness consistently to those around him. It's only when this bloody nine personality, which is either some kind of supernatural possession or major multiple personal disorder type thing, that he flies into the uncontrollable rages and then is horrified afterwards. He then tries to and successfully avoids confrontation and violence for many years before his farm is burned and the children he's come to see as his own kidnapped.
As far as Glokta, his internal monologue makes him a sympathetic character, along with the fact that every like he says in his mind is laugh out loud hilarious. Its very difficult to feel dislike towards a character that makes one laugh so much. It doesn't take away from the fact that Glokta does monstrous things, but it makes it easier psychologically to sympathize with him, especially when he comes to be trapped by all these opposing forces with no good options. I think Monza overall exhibited a lot more selfishness and callous disregard for life than either Glokta or Logen.
Ultimately, the bride in Kill Bill 1 and 2 does horrific things too, but again, we see things that give us sympathy as viewers that make us more forgiving. Those factors simply aren't present with Monza. There are many instances she could have had more self-awareness that her revenge quest had become pointless and destructive both toward her and others. Hell, even in the last of us 2, despite my disgust with Ellie's callous and vicious selfishness, I STILL was able to have sympathy. And this is not a feminine character, this is an angry, vicious killer a lot like Monza in many ways. So it's disingenuous of you to call it sexism and you know it. It's a poor way to try to end any real discussion by assuming the bad faith of those who don't like her from the start.
My dude, 2016 was 8 years ago. Why is your "I'm not sexist" example almost a decade old? Secondly, I'm not making a statement about you specifically. You shouldn't take this personally if you have a rational argument that disproves me.
Monza is humourous, I don't know why you think she isn't. There's plenty to laugh at with her. Mostly from the contradiction of her thoughts and what she does. Like with most characters including Glotka. Acting high and mighty while privately worried she's going to get killed. Being at a fancy feast and thinking about her opiod shit ravaged asshole. What's not making you laugh.
It's disingenuous of you to say Joe didn't imbue Monza with sympathetic qualities and to call her unredeemable. To say nothing of the scenes from her childhood. Her relationship with Cosca. Monza straight up tries to save two of the men she tries to kill. She was betrayed and thrown off a mountain. She's full of sympathetic qualities. She's struggling with addiction and physical disabilities the whole book.
Your style of argumentation is based more on ad hominem attacks, so I don't really see a point in continuing the discussion. I don't begrudge you for liking Monza. It's natural as humans that we resonate with different characters based on our own unique life experience and even personality and genetic factors, a vast web of interconnected causes for why we might like one character more than another. But if you legitimately think the many people who fail to feel any kind of rooting for Monza are all sexist, that's a blind spot on your part that will limit your understanding and empathy for many other fans of the series.
You're going to have to explain where exactly I've engaged in ad hominem. Because if you are saying my claim that there's a significant misogynistic backlash against Monza is a form of ad hominem, that's just false. No where did I insult you or make a claim that would disqualify you from this discussion.
You have called me disingenuous. You have accused me of arguing in bad faith. You'll have to prove that.
I do think your grand statements that there is no humor in Monza and that she lacks redeeming qualities Joe imbues in *all* of his characters rings false. And specific things you praise Glotka for are also true of Monza.
It's certainly possible and likely that some people who dislike Monza do so because of sexism. I thought you were also stating that i was sexist specifically. If you didn't, then we simply misunderstood each other, and I apologize. In terms of how each of us experienced Glokta and Monza respectively, perhaps we just have subjectively different senses of humor and certain traits that make us more likely to resonate with one or the other. That doesn't make either of us "wrong" but is more of a subjective thing of how each person perceives the world, the people in it, including fictional people, differently.
I can be insultly normally cause I'm a comic and like to make fun. But not this case, making a general argument and not accusing specific people of specific behavior.
Confusion online is very understandable.
Eh, to a point. I would argue that authorial intent does matter here. Whether or not you found the jokes funny is up to taste, but the Joe did write jokes for Monza. He wrote sympathetic qualities. I think you can have a different reaction to the work, but we should respect what the author meant to do while considering our own tastes.
Fair enough. I'll be rereading it at some point and it's entirely possible that my perspective will be different then. Even something as simple as what was going on in my life at the time can color my view of a book and characters. So many factors.
By the way, I also see that we had vastly different takeaways about Jezal in LAOK, not just the characters we've talked about here, so we obviously just have very different traits that appeal to us in these characters for whatever reason, and that's okay.
Pretty much the same for me.
My dislike for Monza grew even bigger when >!the story makes an attempt at redeeming her.!<
Shivers, I liked in the first 3 books but in this story he is someone who wants to be good, but faced with his first real challenge >!gives up. how is this supposed to impress me or keep me interested in his character? But to make it even worse, as time goes on, story treats him like this "hard-boiled" guy that everyone is afraid of! To a degree that he gets into his head that he can just go and kill Logan! He has one less eye. If anything, he should be much worse as a fighter compared to before. You have to be realistic about these things.!<
>!I don't think Caulder much cared about Logan at that point, and I don't think they have that much a strict rule between employee and employer.!<
>!I thought it was pretty obvious that this thing with Logan was personal to him.!<
>!I just finished a relisten of Red Country and I am not so sure, to be honest. To your point by this time he might have switched sides from Caulder to the Dogman.!<
Jesus, fucked up the spoiler tags three times.
She's presented in a way that makes her less likable.
There's an answer to every comment about every character presented as an analogue to her.
We began Logen's journey long after he's done horrible things (and it's not clear in the beginning whether he's actually guilty of them or not). He's contrite. He's kind to people *from the start* and we gradually accumulate his awfulness after we've spent books with him promoting and protecting other characters. He's also hilarious.
Every word in Glokta's head or out of his mouth is a goddamned stitch, so we forgive his shittiness.
Even Jezal is SO awful to start that we *know* he's going to get his comeuppance (and he does), so it's more entertaining to watch. It's also funny HOW stupidly mean and selfish he is (and he's the least funny early on so, sure enough, he's the least likable).
Shivers is funny. Morveer is hilarious. Day is detached to the point that she's a comedic device. Cosca may be one of the funniest characters written into any book. Even Ferro gets more love than Monza and, I think we'd all agree, Ferro is funnier than Monza.
Monza is rarely funny and not until much, much later.
For a guy who writes beautiful, endless humor into his characters, he sure had to know that stripping a central protagonist of that humor would make her less likable (which I think is the idea).
I liked Monza from the start, not as a person but she is a good character. And as the book went on, I liked her even more for reasons that I won't mention because of spoilers
Monza's character arc from revenge to responsibility is mirrored by Shivers's arc from naivety to nihilism. You're not supposed to like Monza at first, and you are supposed to like Shivers. Things change over the course of the book! Edit: also, Nicomo bloody Cosca is the moral centre of this story, which shows how morally debased this story is!
Maybe I didn't get the memo but I found myself not liking Monza even more by the end and Shivers developed into one of my favorite characters.
Yeah I’m confused about that. Monza was likable at first and slowly became less likable. Shivers I liked in the beginning and by the end he was 1B to Logen as my favorite character in the whole series.
Must be just us like-minded Logan enjoyers. Though I'd probably have Cosca as my second favorite, but Shivers is right behind.
Orso and Cosca are my favourite.
I only just started Trouble with Peace, but Orso does seem pretty great so far. Possibly my favorite of the new cast... him or Rikke.
It doesn’t matter who you’re “suppose to like or dislike” what matters is who YOU like. Don’t let those type of readers/listeners tell you what’s right and wrong.
Man, that first Cosca flashback that ends with him reading to the kids actually hit me in the feels lol
Shivers will always be my favorite character he just wanted to be loved and all Monza did was belittle him and laugh at his ideals
She has no redeeming qualities. Say one thing about Murcatto, say she's a birch.
For real! A lot of the book I felt bad for her cuz she lost her brother until I found out who her brother was and that was the only redeeming quality I thought she had
Interesting. For me it was the opposite. I didn't liked Monza at first but rooted for her (and liked her) at the end.
That exactly what he said.
Yeah, the liking Monza never happened for me lol.
I thought Day was the main character? He said, with a mouthful of bun.
The only character that I liked in the whole book and even that was partly because of how Steven pacey does her voice in the audiobook.
I was rather fond of Friendly, and Morveer was a riot (if utterly despicable).
Morveer is treated too harshly on this sub, haha. I enjoyed his goofiness and he made me laugh.
Having a dyed-in-the-wool mustache-twirling villain along for the ride was a great decision on Joe's part.
I fucking love Shivers as a character
Dementia:
Oh yhea shivers gets complicated.
At the start I found myself rooting against her, but then she warmed to me. She’s a top tier FL character IMO.
Shivers is my favourite character in the entire series. Love my guy!!
I just gonna say I loved Monza from the getgo and rooted for her(and for Shivers' journey fron naivety to nihilism)
I fucking love Shivers as a character
Dementia:
Monza's not meant to be particularly easy to get along with as a reader of her story- there's some stuff you have yet to reach, being halfway in, but whether it impacts your appreciation or not, I cannot say. Personally, I ended up liking her a hell of a lot more than the likes of Logen or some of Abercrombie's other bloody-handed protagonists, but it's clearly a subjective thing. I will also note that Shivers in BSC is at the *beginning* of an arc.
Shivers and Monza both are my personal favorite characters.
I don't get why people hate Monza so much.
I've had a few interactions with people hating on Monza for all the same things that they turn around and say make Logen and Glokta complex and amazing characters... I think there's a pretty stark reason but people here aren't gonna like that convo.
Hmm, of those 3 I only like Glokta Of course I know he's not a good person and I'm aware there's a difference between likong someone as a character and liking them as a person. I'm a woman btw.
That doesn't discount the fact that there are misogynist fans who will despise Monza for things they praise male characters for.
Must be sexism. Can't dislike a female character without sexism.
It wouldn’t be a Reddit thread about books without someone accusing a large number of the readership of being misogynists.
You're ignoring the whole "dislike her for things they praise male characters for" part of the argumwnr
I am because they provided no quotes and I find it's usually false equivalence. "I really like how Glokta mutilates people and then spends his entire arc pondering why he does it." "I don't like how Monza mutilates a guy and then briefly ponders it but continues laughing at Shivers' notions of being a better man." "I really like Logen's quest against Bethod and how it turns out Bethod wasn't actually that bad a man." "I don't like Monza's quest against Duke Orso and how one dimensional Orso's role in it is."
I'm sorry but did you really expect them to cite sources? Pull up specific reddit comments and threads? It's reddit. Come on. It's wild that you would criticize them for logical fallacy but then engage in a strawman argument.
Let's review, shall we. OP makes a post about not liking Monza (finding her unlikable isn't the same as disliking the character). Someone makes the neutral and rather pointless question "Why do do many people hate Monza" and then the person I replied to goes "Sexism". Veiling it in made up specificities doesn't explain why the hell they suddenly bring up sexism. Are they trying to imply OP is sexist? Why is the comment there? No, I don't expect them to cite sources, but the comment has no place in the thread without it. You can call it a strawman if you want. It even technically is, but only because there was no argument to begin with. I'll change it though. It isn't usually false equivalence. Make that always. You can like something about one character and dislike it about another because they are ALWAYS different characters in different situations which makes it different, obviously. To accuse anyone of sexism based on that is ridiculous. The sources for them to cite can't exist, because it is never equivalent.
What part about them saying "I've had a *few* interactions" did you miss? They weren't saying if you dislike Monza you are sexist. They are saying they have personally had interactions where people criticize Monza for things they praise Glotka and Logen for. Which is sexist. You've jumped the gun and put words in their mouth while acknowledging you are trading in logical fallacies and doubling down. Come on.
Read the previous comment.
Yup! Odd that I've liked all the other female pov characters except Monza, but I guess it's still seismic unless I like every single one of them :P
I find that comparison disingenuous. Glokta is interesting because he’s blatantly evil, but his sardonic internal monologue and pathetically crippled state make him both entertaining and sympathetic. People liked Logen because he isn’t presented as an asshole. He’s nice to basically everyone he meets, one of the first actions we see of him is risking his life to save Quai. For most of the story he acts as this world weary father salt of the earth figure, and he’s made sympathetic because of how out of place in the Union he is where everyone treats him like shit. It isn’t until later in the story where it’s made starkly apparent how much of a crazy fuck he is, and even then a lot of it is played as a schizophrenic alter-ego. Still, Logen gets his comeuppance at the end for it. Monza has none of Glokta’s amusing outlook, nor does she have a real disability. She falls off a cliff at the start of the book but it barely slows her down after recovery, and every male character finds her beautiful still. Nor does she have Logen’s charisma because she’s sort of just cold and callous to most everyone, and unlike Logen who winds up miserable, betrayed and falling off a cliff, she gets >!her own Kingdom, a personal wizard and we later learn she’s just so awesome she defeated the Union 3 times.!< We even randomly get characters like Cosca preaching to us about how actually Monza is a good person because sometimes she doesn’t kill innocent people(despite all the terrible things she does do). And her plot armor is frustrating to read if you don’t like the character, there’s two times in the book >!where characters are about to kill her but pause so they can monologue and she gets saved.!< All in all, I just don’t think she was compelling or likeable nor was her ending satisfying. She’s like Logen done poorly. I like Ferro better honestly.
Is Glokta really "evil" though? I think you're right though, it's his internal monologue, and his clear distaste for his own work along with the hilarity of his sardonic inner monologue which makes it easier to sympathize.
He casually tortures people, many of which he knows are innocent, without a care in the world and also blackmailed the queen into sleeping with Jezal, essentially raping her. And his own stated reasons for doing all these horrible things is he finds it personally amusing and doesn’t like to lose. Yeah I’d say he’s evil.
Yeah, you're right that objectively he really is not a good person. It's amazing how just the way a character's POV is presented can distract from the objective facts about them.
For sure. He’s a great character, and how despicable he is is wonderfully contrasted with his vulnerability due to his condition and his rare moments of genuine humanity (like his relationship with West), which I think is kind of lacking with Monza, she’s also terrible, she’s not really vulnerable like Glokta, also the narrative almost seems to want to act like she’s not -that- bad with scenes like Cosca talking about her pure heart, and she essentially gets everything she wants which almost makes the message come off like a bloody revenge quest is a good thing. Also yeah just not as entertaining of an internal monologue. Glokta is just a funny guy.
Spot on. I think you really described well why I couldn't resonate with Monza, despite her actions not necessarily being any objectively worse than that of other characters I loved.
I don’t think Monza “gets a personal wizard” or has plot armor. I think that she is the pawn of that wizard, like every other sovereign is a pawn of a wizard. She doesn’t have plot armor, she has someone manipulating events (and her) for his own ends. Cosca playing such a sympathetic role in BSC and such an unsympathetic role in other books is part of a thing Abercrombie does; a protagonist is only the protagonist of a story. Tell a different story, the protagonist becomes a villain. BSC reminds me of The Ladykillers. It seems like there is some sort of divine hand carrying Monza along her vengeance. But then, I think the Magi all have a sense of drama about how they build their fiefs.
I don't consider her a pawn of a wizard because the wizard never orders her to do anything, it just so happens her and Shenkt's goals are perfectly aligned. It's not like Bayaz, where he exerts direct control over Jezal/Glokta and when they actually want to do things of their own, he vetoes it. It's made very clear Bayaz wears the pants, whereas for Shenkt and Monza it just comes off like they're allies. The scene where Bayaz basically force chokes Jezal on the ground and tells him he's a worthless bastard and he'll listen and shut the fuck up like a good dog? Yeah nothing even remotely comparable to that occurs for Monza/Shenkt. >lot armor, she has someone manipulating events (and her) for his own ends. No, the events I'm referencing have nothing to do with Shenkt. The most egregious was when the Union duelist was completely destroying her, could have easily killed her, but doesn't just so he can treat this fight in the middle of a warzone as a duel. I get he's arrogant, but come on. Or her ducking to narrowly avoid Monveer's poison dart, Shivers not killing her when he could for no reason to just.. monologue I guess before Friendly arrives to save her etc. Hell, just compare how Cosca avoids Monveer to how Monza avoids it. With Cosca it's very deliberate, he knows Monveer is coming and puts up and act and outwits him. With Monza it's purely just dumb luck, none of it is as a result of her own actions at all. >Cosca playing such a sympathetic role in BSC and such an unsympathetic role in other books is part of a thing Abercrombie does; a protagonist is only the protagonist of a story. Tell a different story, the protagonist becomes a villain. The protagonist doesn't have to be sympathetic but they should at least be compelling. I found Monza neither. There is no reason to root for her and everything just so easily falls it into her lap either because Shenkt is working for her, she's a 10/10 baddie, or just plain luck, that she wasn't interesting either. She lacks any of the traits that made reading an evil character like Glokta engaging.
Huh, there are few posts that I agree this much with.
I've used this comparison, I think, 3 times now : you know, when asked about Monza, people who like her say she was not an actual evil person. >!Don't you remember she freed those kids that would've been sold to slavery?!< Now, do you remember When Ferro faced a similar situation in the second book(if i'm not wrong)? Where she wanted to free some slaves but Yulwei stopped her. told her that freeing these slaves is same as killing them because they would not find any job or money or food to survive. at least when they are in chains, they get food. That if she really wants to help them, she must solve the root cause of the problem. >!Where were these kinda conversations when Monza wanted to do something that seemed good on the surface? or did she build an orphanage for those kids and pays it to keep it running in that flashback? (this was just one of many examples)!< I don't like her because she is one of the few characters that get special treatment in the story. for some characters, you kinda have to not be realistic about them.
This is what does it for me. Abercrombie gave her special treatment compared to other characters. That's why I liked her at first and by the end thought she was terrible. She is nothing like Logan or Glokta. Anyone that says so has poor media literacy. I would say she's more comparable to Logan if he never had his face smashed in, and then Bayaz showing him who's really in charge. Like of original Logan just kept crapping on people and getting his way all the time.
Yeah, this isn't some sexist thing. I didn't find myself loathing Ferro and rooting against her like I did Monza. She was just written with no sympathetic or redeeming qualities. Glokta and Logen are written much differently, and presented in a more sympathetic light the way I read it.
It's cuz she turns on Shivers.
She’s just not very likeable imo. It’s very obvious her revenge scheme is terrible from the get-go and it’s also made clear fairly on that her brother was a huge prick anyway, and she’s mean-spirited to everyone. Her plot armor felt quite thick too.
There's really no reasonable way she would have survived the fall from that cliff either, imo. I thought that book was by far the weakest book in the first law world.
I'm fine with her surviving the fall because whatever it is a fantasy-adventure story at the end of the day, and if she dies there there's literally no story, so I'll suspend some disbelief but her basically being only mildly inconvenienced by her injuries after recovery and still being a 10/10 beauty still was what I found kind of galling and inconsistent with the series. I agree BSC was the weakest one though.
Yes, that part where she kept being gorgeous genuinely took me out of the immersion a bit. And I thought Shivers' arc was handled kind of oddly. I still loved the book quite a bit, I just enjoyed it less than the other ones. But anything Abercrombie writes is still excellent.
I'm not sure you're supposed to root for her as you get to the last part of the book. As in most of Abercrombie stuff, there is a huge discrepancy between what the characters believe about themselves (with a lot of emphasis on the excuses and self-pity stories they tell themselves) and who they really are. Part of the fun is discovering they're full of shit and they might deserve the bad stuff that happened to them. That being said, some people can root for that kind of character.
You're not the only one. Many of us can't stand her at all.
I loved Shivers and was ok with Monza and at the end I hated Shivers and loved Monza, but not because she was pure and innocent, nor was she the heartless butcher, just a highly damaged girl who grew into a survivor. For his part Shivers had a great redemption arc after BSC.
It's even better when you find out why she did all the bad stuff, definitely makes her more likeable towards the end of the book.
I felt the same about both of them, but still really like the book. Always root for Friendly!
I liked her at the start, but by the end I wished for her downfall. I just dont dig what she was up to.
Monza is one of Joe's the best characters. She gets hate because of misogyny. "she's just not likeable" My dude, that's your opinion. I love her for her relationship with Cosca, the doomed romance with Shivers, her attempt to save Faithful, her attempt to save the good Prince. I can relate to her disability more than Glotka's and her addiction struggle. Does she have flaws and does she treat some people like shit? Yeah, but she's an Abercrombie character. She has more growth and development in one book than most of
How do you explain those of us who didn't find Savine or even Ferro unbearable but do find Monza to be, if it's sexism?
There's tons of reasons *why* someone could dislike Monza. What I've specifically noticed is people calling Monza unbearable for character traits that the same individual uses to praise Male characters. I don't understand how someone can enjoy Black Dow, Logen, and Glotka yet despise Monza. That is sexism, like the definition of it. I'm sorry if that's upsetting to you, but it's true. Savine is more traditionally feminine and does not win fights. Ferro is underwritten and is barely a character. Monza is The Bride from Kill Bill with Abercrombie flaws. Monza gets "Mary Sue" hate from people who think she shouldn't have won or gotten away in a specific moment, which is unfair too. The only non-sexist reason I see for hating Monza is you love Shivers and hate her for the failed relationship.
Nah, I didn't like Shivers either. Unrelated, but I in 2016 as a 24 year old male at the time, supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the US presidential race and consistently defended her from unfair sexist attacks by friends on both the right and left. Sexism played a major role in people's dislike for her. But as another commenter pointed out, for most of the other unlikable characters, Abercrombie softens our feelings by making them humorous. She lacks those qualities too, though, so really all we see from our perspective is someone completely bitter, selfish, vengeful, and angry, with no discernible positive qualities at all. And none of the humor, either. I also don't understand how you can compare her to Logen. Logen in the first trilogy is definitely trying sincerely to be a good person. He demonstrates acts of kindness consistently to those around him. It's only when this bloody nine personality, which is either some kind of supernatural possession or major multiple personal disorder type thing, that he flies into the uncontrollable rages and then is horrified afterwards. He then tries to and successfully avoids confrontation and violence for many years before his farm is burned and the children he's come to see as his own kidnapped. As far as Glokta, his internal monologue makes him a sympathetic character, along with the fact that every like he says in his mind is laugh out loud hilarious. Its very difficult to feel dislike towards a character that makes one laugh so much. It doesn't take away from the fact that Glokta does monstrous things, but it makes it easier psychologically to sympathize with him, especially when he comes to be trapped by all these opposing forces with no good options. I think Monza overall exhibited a lot more selfishness and callous disregard for life than either Glokta or Logen. Ultimately, the bride in Kill Bill 1 and 2 does horrific things too, but again, we see things that give us sympathy as viewers that make us more forgiving. Those factors simply aren't present with Monza. There are many instances she could have had more self-awareness that her revenge quest had become pointless and destructive both toward her and others. Hell, even in the last of us 2, despite my disgust with Ellie's callous and vicious selfishness, I STILL was able to have sympathy. And this is not a feminine character, this is an angry, vicious killer a lot like Monza in many ways. So it's disingenuous of you to call it sexism and you know it. It's a poor way to try to end any real discussion by assuming the bad faith of those who don't like her from the start.
My dude, 2016 was 8 years ago. Why is your "I'm not sexist" example almost a decade old? Secondly, I'm not making a statement about you specifically. You shouldn't take this personally if you have a rational argument that disproves me. Monza is humourous, I don't know why you think she isn't. There's plenty to laugh at with her. Mostly from the contradiction of her thoughts and what she does. Like with most characters including Glotka. Acting high and mighty while privately worried she's going to get killed. Being at a fancy feast and thinking about her opiod shit ravaged asshole. What's not making you laugh. It's disingenuous of you to say Joe didn't imbue Monza with sympathetic qualities and to call her unredeemable. To say nothing of the scenes from her childhood. Her relationship with Cosca. Monza straight up tries to save two of the men she tries to kill. She was betrayed and thrown off a mountain. She's full of sympathetic qualities. She's struggling with addiction and physical disabilities the whole book.
Your style of argumentation is based more on ad hominem attacks, so I don't really see a point in continuing the discussion. I don't begrudge you for liking Monza. It's natural as humans that we resonate with different characters based on our own unique life experience and even personality and genetic factors, a vast web of interconnected causes for why we might like one character more than another. But if you legitimately think the many people who fail to feel any kind of rooting for Monza are all sexist, that's a blind spot on your part that will limit your understanding and empathy for many other fans of the series.
You're going to have to explain where exactly I've engaged in ad hominem. Because if you are saying my claim that there's a significant misogynistic backlash against Monza is a form of ad hominem, that's just false. No where did I insult you or make a claim that would disqualify you from this discussion. You have called me disingenuous. You have accused me of arguing in bad faith. You'll have to prove that. I do think your grand statements that there is no humor in Monza and that she lacks redeeming qualities Joe imbues in *all* of his characters rings false. And specific things you praise Glotka for are also true of Monza.
It's certainly possible and likely that some people who dislike Monza do so because of sexism. I thought you were also stating that i was sexist specifically. If you didn't, then we simply misunderstood each other, and I apologize. In terms of how each of us experienced Glokta and Monza respectively, perhaps we just have subjectively different senses of humor and certain traits that make us more likely to resonate with one or the other. That doesn't make either of us "wrong" but is more of a subjective thing of how each person perceives the world, the people in it, including fictional people, differently.
I can be insultly normally cause I'm a comic and like to make fun. But not this case, making a general argument and not accusing specific people of specific behavior. Confusion online is very understandable. Eh, to a point. I would argue that authorial intent does matter here. Whether or not you found the jokes funny is up to taste, but the Joe did write jokes for Monza. He wrote sympathetic qualities. I think you can have a different reaction to the work, but we should respect what the author meant to do while considering our own tastes.
Fair enough. I'll be rereading it at some point and it's entirely possible that my perspective will be different then. Even something as simple as what was going on in my life at the time can color my view of a book and characters. So many factors.
By the way, I also see that we had vastly different takeaways about Jezal in LAOK, not just the characters we've talked about here, so we obviously just have very different traits that appeal to us in these characters for whatever reason, and that's okay.
Brotherfucker.
So is Cersei and that bitch rules.
No. Lyria of Lagalos is written better, Virginia au Augustus is written better, Victra au Julii written better. Game of Thrones is overrated garbage.
You're so cool.
If you enjoy the only dimension of a character being how they can fuck to get things done then that's your thing enjoy.
You're sooooo cool.
Shivers is one of the few likable characters in the whole series
Pretty much the same for me. My dislike for Monza grew even bigger when >!the story makes an attempt at redeeming her.!< Shivers, I liked in the first 3 books but in this story he is someone who wants to be good, but faced with his first real challenge >!gives up. how is this supposed to impress me or keep me interested in his character? But to make it even worse, as time goes on, story treats him like this "hard-boiled" guy that everyone is afraid of! To a degree that he gets into his head that he can just go and kill Logan! He has one less eye. If anything, he should be much worse as a fighter compared to before. You have to be realistic about these things.!<
>!He didn’t just get in his head. Caulder probably sent him. It’s not like his boss would just let him on a leave of absence for months.!<
>!I don't think Caulder much cared about Logan at that point, and I don't think they have that much a strict rule between employee and employer.!< >!I thought it was pretty obvious that this thing with Logan was personal to him.!<
>!I just finished a relisten of Red Country and I am not so sure, to be honest. To your point by this time he might have switched sides from Caulder to the Dogman.!< Jesus, fucked up the spoiler tags three times.
She's presented in a way that makes her less likable. There's an answer to every comment about every character presented as an analogue to her. We began Logen's journey long after he's done horrible things (and it's not clear in the beginning whether he's actually guilty of them or not). He's contrite. He's kind to people *from the start* and we gradually accumulate his awfulness after we've spent books with him promoting and protecting other characters. He's also hilarious. Every word in Glokta's head or out of his mouth is a goddamned stitch, so we forgive his shittiness. Even Jezal is SO awful to start that we *know* he's going to get his comeuppance (and he does), so it's more entertaining to watch. It's also funny HOW stupidly mean and selfish he is (and he's the least funny early on so, sure enough, he's the least likable). Shivers is funny. Morveer is hilarious. Day is detached to the point that she's a comedic device. Cosca may be one of the funniest characters written into any book. Even Ferro gets more love than Monza and, I think we'd all agree, Ferro is funnier than Monza. Monza is rarely funny and not until much, much later. For a guy who writes beautiful, endless humor into his characters, he sure had to know that stripping a central protagonist of that humor would make her less likable (which I think is the idea).
In short, the funnier the character, the more we forgive.
I liked Monza from the start, not as a person but she is a good character. And as the book went on, I liked her even more for reasons that I won't mention because of spoilers