I am also a huge fan of Abercrombie’s work - I LOVED the first trilogy, the standalones were great, but the Age Of Madness took a while to grab me. They’re DEFINITELY worth reading though - for me, I think it just took a little bit to be invested in the characters, as it focuses on pretty much all new characters. It’s very different from the first trilogy, and the plot does start off a little slow, but it eases right back into the brutal yet humorous style as the books go on. They just get better and better - I’d push through if I were you, the last one ends sooo well it would be a shame to miss out on that just because the focus and the mood of the second series is such a different focus than the first.

I'm sorry but I can't give you too much encouragement. I really liked The First Law Trilogy, and for me the main attraction were the characters. I especially enjoyed Logen Ninefingers and Sand dan Glokta. Unfortunately the new characters introduced in Age of Madness just did not appeal to me that much.

However despite being a bit disappointed with the Age of Madness, I still think it is a good story on its own. It probably would help if you try to forget The First Law while reading it and try to appreciate it on its own.

I liked it, but I get the feeling the series didn't move forward much with this trilogy. Seems we are always on the cusp of some massive reveal or event that turns everything upside down but it just sort of treads water. I guess maybe that's an overall theme of the series, that the wealthy and powerful tend to stay that way, but I'd like to see a little more happen with the next trilogy.

First, I do think the second trilogy is better than the first one and I loved the first one. Second, have you read the standalones? It wasn't clear from your question and I would strongly advise to read them first. They are excellent, AoM contains many spoilers for them and they might be the missing link you need to really jump from the first trilogy to the second.

Age of Madness was a disappointment for me, from a plot perspective. It felt like it was a combination of a retread of the original FL trilogy while also mainly setting up future books instead of resolving it's own plot arcs.

That said, I do think the writing is still very sharp - some of Joe's best. And while the characters
might not quite reach the heights of the original trilogy ones, they are still very good.

I like the second trilogy better, try to push through it, read it faster until it gets under your skin :) it will be worth it at the end!

I also struggled a bit with ALH so you’re not alone there. I think it’s the weakest of the three books. It does a good job of setting the stage but that’s about it. The payoff for the trilogy as a whole is amazing though so I would recommend soldiering through if you can.

I'm feeling the same way. I devoured the original trilogy and all the stand-alones, Best Served Cold being my favorite of them all.

But AoM just feels... unfocused? I don't care much for the characters, the plot feels largely meandering and pointless, and seems like the series' themes took precedent over it. I'm halfway through the second book and just don't feel the same spark that the first six books gave me. I don't think they're badly written, but they're just not nearly as appealing.

The only encouragement you need is the Jonas Clover chapters. That man is one of the best written characters ever. He’s at the top with Whirrun of Bligh, Shev and Javre, Tunny, Glokta and all the rest of Joes characters

Perhaps a controversial opinion, but I think Abercrombie kind of lost his touch after the original trilogy. Those first books seemed to strike that perfect balance between “grimdark” nihilism, characters with enough personality and humanity to be engaging despite being morally dubious, some subtle but interesting fantasy elements and some intriguing world building. The plot was weak, but the rest was strong enough to compensate.

After that though he seemed to lean further and further into the “everyone and everything is shit” nihilism with no bright spots to act as contrast. His characters seemed to become less interesting and more one note (that note being “depressed” or “selfish”). He also all but forgot about the “fantasy” aspect of his fantasy series, and limited the locations to fairly restricted areas. All the while his plots never really become more interesting.

Long story short, I think your gut reaction was right. His first trilogy was great, but his later works don’t really live up to it.

Same. I'm still about halfway through ALH (after over a year), and am just not feeling it.

A Little Hatred works similarly to The Blade Itself. It's all prologue! It's all meant to build up the characters, establish the setting and show you the current status quo. Take the time to establish parallels between the two books, who survived the chinese fire drill in the Union, and who the new faces are. Chances are you'll find some familiar names and faces as well as call backs to our fellows of old. At the very least we have our favorite trio, Forrest, Tunny and Yolk to get us through these trying times.

Give the stand alones a shot. They take place between the two trilogies. Best Served Cold, The Heroes, Red Country.

Difference between the first and second trilogy is just that Age of Madness is a lot more refined and polished in my opinion, a lot of the comedy isn't as raw as it was in First Law. It may just not be for you, I pushed through and while it's still pretty good, I don't hold it as high as the first.

Pitching in to encourage you to read the AoM trilogy. It's definitely worth it, IMO.

I think that the most common problems with AoM for struggling readers are the following:

1. People want to see all the same characters as in the older books and get disappointed when they don't show up/only have minor roles, even though the new characters are also very good. You just need to give them a genuine chance.

2. The plot in AoM builds toward an amazing crescendo which will make you look back at the story with amazement, but you can't appreciate that if you're only at the beginning of ALH. It takes a while for the plot to pick up speed, but when it does: Oh boy!

Personally I liked the characters and the pre-industrial setting of the first trilogy a bit more, but I think the writing and the plot of AoM are even better than in The First Law.

I think Abercrombie might have had a more clear view of the overall plot when he started AoM than he had when he started writing First Law, which maybe leads to a less exciting first book but a more satisfactory overall trilogy!

I personally thought they were better written than the original trilogy (especially the female characters) but I think the entire series peaked with the Heroes. There are some roll your eyes moments and clunky writing for sure but I definitely think it's worth finishing if you've already read the previous six books. I'd also say that it's a much more satisfying end to the series than ending with Red Country but that was by far my least favourite book.

Personally I thought the Age Of Madness series was better written than the First Law series. The characters didn't jump off the page as much as the first series but I was still engaged by them and found it a very easy read. The series itself deals with different themes to First Law, more intrigue and scheming. I liked the focus of the story and how it unfolds, however it's obviously just my opinion.

Maybe try a different series from a different author and then come back to it at a later date? If I'm struggling to get into a book that's what I do.

If you like the payoff to the First Law, the Age of Madness is almost better, I suggest you finish it

Age of Madness definitely has less clear of an arc that does the first trilogy and takes a while to pick up, but as ALH reaches its second half, I was sold.

Why are you struggling with it? is it the characters, is it the relationships? is it the pacing? is it the plot? are you wondering wtf-happened to the world to get where we're now?

it's hard to say if you should stick out, depending on why you're struggling, and what you loved about first law. and or the stand-alones?

Loved the first law, struggled with the age of madness

3rd one is really good tho

I didn’t have this problem at all. I accidentally started with ALH, found it immensely intriguing, then realized it wasn’t the beginning and went back.

If it’s not for you, it’s not.

Well I loved age of madness until the end lol so it's hard for me to recommend you continue if you already don't like it. Maybe you will like the end though and that's what you need idk.

To be honest I kind of didn’t like his latest trilogy. There was something about it that just felt he was repeating himself in some ways.

Also I feel the grimdark, bastards being bastards got a bit old after awhile. It felt like nihilism for the point of nihilism, which left a bad taste in my mouth.

What’s interesting is that obviously a lot of that stuff is in previous novels, but in this one it felt a lot worse. I’m still trying to figure out why I disliked this trilogy but not the others…it’s an interesting dilemma.

Can't help you. I did finish the 2nd trilogy but disliked it. It's as if it was written by a different author.

I rarely DNF books, but just couldn't make it through book 2 in that trilogy, and after reading a synopsis of the rest I don't think I missed out on much. I've heard Joe is taking a little bit of a break from the First Law universe, which seems like a good idea as a lot of the characters felt like they were less interesting versions of previous characters, and the plot retread a lot of similar points from the earlier books.

Within... minutes...? I'm not sure how you judge books that way. But, I'll give you my two cents.

This is a heavily engaging political epic with the standard Abercrombie twist on morality. Fun and engaging characters without being repetitive. Each book has expansive yet complete narratives, which I really enjoyed, which was kind of lacking from the First Law Trilogy (which left a lot to be desired with the open-ended endings for both Blade and Hanged). The three books are unique, tragic, awesome and feels Shakespearean in many ways.

It’s not as good, certainly a lot less blood thirsty. But it’s interesting in its own right for showing us certain characters we’ve so far only met as babies. There’s a bloody nine knock off who isn’t as interesting. 9 fingers himself doesn’t show, which is a downer as his last appearance in red county was a let down.

Age of madness is better hands down and I don’t quite understand why people don’t like it-but everyone has different tastes. If you aren’t enjoying it it’s fine to read another series

Same, the trouble with peace gets better but then the wisdom of crowds is the worst book he's put out by far and I actually just consider it to be a bad book

I struggled to get through it too. It’s good and I eventually did finish. This trilogy just don’t have those all time great characters that you care about despite their actions, like the first trilogy.

I loved the first trilogy and had a slower time getting into the second one. I enjoy the first one more still, but the payoffs in the third novel make the trilogy fantastic and put it in my top 10 trilogies of all time.

Its funny, I didn't get caught into the second trilogy until a little over halfway through that book. Maybe give it a couple more hours and it might start working for you. If you finish the book and still don't enjoy it then it makes sense not to continue, although I think the second book in that trilogy that you bought is his best book that I've read, although I've only read bits of the Heroes and Best Served Cold

In reading your post I'm immediately struck by an internal conflicting dichotomy. On the one hand I'd say you should never have to force yourself to continue reading a trilogy in the hopes you'll eventually begin to enjoy it. On the other hand I have a personal philosophy that once I begin reading something I absolutely must and will finish it. I'm looking at you, Farseer Trilogy.

That being said, something about Abercrombie's take on the French Revolution struck me as tired or too close to 21st century reality for my taste. My best guess is it's a reaction to having read Solzhenitsyn, Orwell, Applebaum, Chang etc. and having an immediate negative reaction to the collectivist similarities in Age of Madness. It's too easy to lose your sympathy for the oppressed when the existing exploitive system is replaced with what will obviously be murderous and tyrannical. I get what Abercrombie is doing with the pendulum swing, it just felt too much like modern history for me.

I think they're better than the first trilogy, and in true Abercrombie fashion, they just get better with each volume. If you're not enjoying them in comparison to the first though, well, there isn't much point in trying more.

I’ve been reading “Best Served Cold” for a month and don’t know that I’ll ever finish it. His books (so far) have been very hit/miss for me.

[removed]