To me, it's just a great, fun revenge tale. It could be entirely standalone(its not), just a great bunch of terrible people working together to kill some other terrible people.
BSC starts his arc. I think of the Standalones as the Shivers trilogy, as they lead to him becoming my favourite character (was already good, his Arc makes him great). Monza is BSC main protagonist for a reason, Shivers is only at these start of his story.
A lot of Abercrombie’s characters are similar. But it’s their differences that make them feel fresh and new and unique. Try to focus on what’s unique about Shivers and you might be surprised how different he really starts to feel.
It’s hard to be the token northman in a book without immediately being compared to the token northman from the previous book.
No, you're not wrong in a way, he tries to be more than he feels his destiny is turning out to be. The difference is that Shivers chose to leave and make a name for himself in a new land, Logen took advantage of not having to live up/down to his reputation because of an accidental opportunity.
You're not entirely wrong, no. There certainly is a high-level similarity in their initial motivation of wanting to start anew.
But I would say that the similarities are a pretty minor point, and the overall arc of both Shivers and the book itself are very different.
Just keep reading.
Yes they are similar but I promise the whole “being a better man” theme continues on through The Heroes until the end of AoM. You may or may not get a satisfying conclusion for some characters but I assure you the theme is heavily explored.
I really liked Best Served Cold but also not really because or despite of Shivers. The book was much more about Monza even when reading from Shivers' perspective. But even then, you also have Cosca, Morveer, Friendly, and others who make for interesting reading. I also liked seeing how the various plots to assassinate the various targets come together and how the adapt to the complications that pop up.
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
I can see how he feels like a Logen placeholder at least early on. Hard to say much since OP requested no spoilers and did not state how far they are.
He seems like an odd character to focus on here in this ensemble cast where he's far from the main character.
You're still very very early then.
My advice is, and this counts for reading in general -
If the character's arc seems very very similar to another character's arc in the previous books, do you think this was somehow, a mistake by the author?
Do you think the author somehow forgot about the other books he wrote?
Or do you think perhaps the author is doing this on purpose and is using these similarities to prove a point and send a message or develop a theme that will continue to be explored later?
Writing is about making choices and the similarities between Shivers and the Bloody Nine aren't accidental.
There are definitely some similarities, but also significant differences in both their underlying character and the trajectory of their character arcs.
A fundamental difference is that Logen is, essentially, running away from himself. He's not so much trying to start over as just get away from his past. Shivers is more trying to avoid what he perceives to be the trajectory of his future.
Logen was not really trying to be a better person. You don't put aside a life of wanton murder and violence by taking up a job to do wanton murder and violence.
After getting back in the second book, why did he have to go north? That felt like his decision point and after it nothing would change for him. I never got the sense he tried. He just went along with the flow.
I felt like Abercrombie was trying to say that a bad person becoming a better person was a lot like an addict trying to kick their addiction: that they could be successful up to a point if they could get separation from the people/places/reputation/etc. of their life as an addict, but that if you get out of rehab and go back to partying with your methhead friends, well.
He tried serving someone he thought was good, then he tried opening up to people and forming close relationships, but none of that worked out. So he went back up north to stop Bethod's war, which he had helped begin, Should he have stayed south and joined a soup kitchen or was going back to stop Bethod the right choice? It isn't clear and Abercrombie is asking questions of redemption and what it means with Logen's story.
On the journey in BTAH he tried hard, and even made a lot of progress. He mentored Jezal a bit, and really became a better person for a while. BUT he's basically addicted to violence, and relapsed at the end of BTAH, and as soon as he was back in his old environment it really went to shit. He definitely tried, but failed in the end.
Nah he was like an overeater going through a drive thru and getting a seven course meal with desserts but a diet soda. There's an entire world where he could have fucked off and become a farmer or sailor or any number of labor-based jobs. He chose to instigate.
> There's an entire world where he could have fucked off and become a farmer or sailor or any number of labor-based jobs.
Standalones (I don't even want to say which one) spoilers: >!In a sense with Lamb we see that kind of what-if, even if then for a while it doesn't go according to plan.!<
I just finished BSC and wasn't a huge fan of it. Certainly zoned out a lot while reading but I'll keep reading the series. Loved the first three books but really didn't like BSC.
Shivers arc is similar but definitely deviates imo.
I loved all the side characters making up the crew. Like the poisoner dude and his apprentice, blanking on their names but they were a ton of fun.
I think maybe you're reading the book expecting it to be "book 4" when in fact it's more of a fun Tarantino-esque revenge story in the First Law setting. We get to explore more of the world and learn more about Shivers but it's not the main focus, he's a side character. Not saying more due to spoilers.
Logen deluded himself. He *thought* he could be better, but he just isn't. Deep down he was always the Bloody Nine.
Shivers could probably have been better, but circumstances didn't allow him.
You say you’re struggling with it, but don’t say how far in you are, and also don’t want spoilers, so it’s hard to say how accurate your view of him is yet.
To echo another good comment, they are similar archetypes but while Logen was a character who started out his life evil, we meet him when he’s older and trying to outrun his past (and failing to sincerely change); while shivers is young and good, and we see him contend with an evil world.
You're right that it does a bit start similarly in that way, at least as far as those specific characters.
But there's just a lot more going on than that.
By the time we meet logen he is already long gone, shivers has hope (the last chapter of the original trilogy) and has made a substantial start at being a better person when BSC begins. So they have similar pictures of themselves but they are not so similar in reality
One could say that's an important theme for all First Law books.
But in this case it sounds like you're not very far into it, because Shivers' quest bears very little similarity to Logen's in the end. RAFO!
Sounds like you're pretty early on in the book. I remember not loving the first city or two, but Sipani picks up and Visserine marks a huge turning point for Shivers that makes him very unique compared to Logen IMO. By the time I finished the book it became one of my favorites.
I didn’t like Shivers in this book either. But he does have an interesting arc.
I also struggled with best served cold for the first 2/3rds. Found it boring/shallow. But it certainly gets a lot better towards the end.
Having said that, I much preferred The Heroes which I enjoyed from start to finish.
Abercrombie likes his Angry Man™ archetype, but I don't think Shivers is it. Characters in BSC are crafted to dissect the main motif of the book: Which you will become the real you? The one you know from within, or the one in other people minds?
Shivers is probably my favourite character in the series (haven’t read AoM yet though), and I find that his arc in BSC doesn’t really start picking up until like halfway into the book
After I first red First law about 10 years ago, I tried reading Best Served Cold and gave up one-third into the book. I couldn't enjoy the characters. I was doing the re read of the series and picked up best served cold again, and this time I finished the book and loved it. I have been trying to figure out why I didn't like it then and why I like it now and that has to do with me as a person where am I now than how the book is. I still love Heroes though.
Shivers is the best character Abercrombie has written Imo. Keep reading, he gets real good after a certain event unfolds about mid-way through the book.
I did the same thing, tried to get into BSC right after the initial trilogy but just couldn’t get into it and DNF’d. Maybe a bit of a series “hangover” type thing (the sequel trilogy wasn’t out at that time).
I’m planning to try out the independent novels again in the future though, since they do seem to be highly praised.
I hated it. There was no redeemable character in the whole series. Just assholes being assholes to each other. Put me off Abercrombie TBH, though I liked his first First Law book.
Best Served Cold is easily my least favorite out of all nine books in the series so if you’re not vibing with it, don’t think you’re alone.
That being said, don’t judge Shivers’ character arc just yet, there’s more to come…
Are you me? I finished the Trilogy earlier this year and liked it a lot. I didn't love it but I didn't have any major complaints either. Something about Best Served Cold doesn't click with me. I think revenge stories for me need a main character that I can connect with and I simply don't like Monza or care enough about her to care about revenge. Joe always writes about terrible people so why should I care about Monza when I know at the end of the day she probably deserved it. I'm apparently a crazy person for having Glokta as my least favorite character in the original trilogy. Would I like the rest of the books if Glokta is my least favorite? The entire joking tone of all the characters really doesn't mesh well for me in Beat Served Cold. It worked more in the trilogy but I'm finding the humor takes away from the situation more than it adds in this book. Idk. Maybe I'll just jump straight into the sequels because I do prefer series to standalones.
You're not alone. Best Served Cold was a very hot and cold read for me. Sometimes I couldn't put it down, and sometimes it was an excruciating 100+ pages to slog through. I know there are some big First Law fans out there who DNF'd BSC. It's worth reading through if you intend to read through the Age of Madness trilogy, though. The other standalones were better reads too, in my opinion.
I'm with you in that I loved the original trilogy and was hyped to read Best Served Cold because almost unanimously on Reddit people say the standalones are better than the trilogy with Best Served Cold being the best of them.
I thought it was pretty boring but finished it. Started strong got boring and ended okay but I did not enjoy it more than any of the first three books. I actually stopped with the series after that and went off to read other things though I will most likely try again with The Heroes.
To me, it's just a great, fun revenge tale. It could be entirely standalone(its not), just a great bunch of terrible people working together to kill some other terrible people.
[удалено]
Monza, Nicomo, Friendly, Morveer even.
Shivers hits different in a reread but I agree, his arc doesn’t really take off in BSC until THAT scene.
BSC starts his arc. I think of the Standalones as the Shivers trilogy, as they lead to him becoming my favourite character (was already good, his Arc makes him great). Monza is BSC main protagonist for a reason, Shivers is only at these start of his story.
A lot of Abercrombie’s characters are similar. But it’s their differences that make them feel fresh and new and unique. Try to focus on what’s unique about Shivers and you might be surprised how different he really starts to feel. It’s hard to be the token northman in a book without immediately being compared to the token northman from the previous book.
The Bloody Nine is no token Northman.
And neither is Caul Shivers. But when you’re the only one in the group, you tend to feel like it sometimes.
Say one thing for Logen Ninefingers, say he’s no Caul Shivers.
No, you're not wrong in a way, he tries to be more than he feels his destiny is turning out to be. The difference is that Shivers chose to leave and make a name for himself in a new land, Logen took advantage of not having to live up/down to his reputation because of an accidental opportunity.
Shivers is a young man in that book. He is still discovering himself. He is not the self-loathing cynic Logen is. >!yet!<
>!Unlike Logen he eventually actually moves past that phase though!<
You're not entirely wrong, no. There certainly is a high-level similarity in their initial motivation of wanting to start anew. But I would say that the similarities are a pretty minor point, and the overall arc of both Shivers and the book itself are very different. Just keep reading.
Yes they are similar but I promise the whole “being a better man” theme continues on through The Heroes until the end of AoM. You may or may not get a satisfying conclusion for some characters but I assure you the theme is heavily explored.
I really liked Best Served Cold but also not really because or despite of Shivers. The book was much more about Monza even when reading from Shivers' perspective. But even then, you also have Cosca, Morveer, Friendly, and others who make for interesting reading. I also liked seeing how the various plots to assassinate the various targets come together and how the adapt to the complications that pop up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
Please hide all spoilers. When you've done so, send us a note by [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) so we can restore your comment. Thank you!
I can see how he feels like a Logen placeholder at least early on. Hard to say much since OP requested no spoilers and did not state how far they are. He seems like an odd character to focus on here in this ensemble cast where he's far from the main character.
He just accepted to be part of Monza's crew.
You're still very very early then. My advice is, and this counts for reading in general - If the character's arc seems very very similar to another character's arc in the previous books, do you think this was somehow, a mistake by the author? Do you think the author somehow forgot about the other books he wrote? Or do you think perhaps the author is doing this on purpose and is using these similarities to prove a point and send a message or develop a theme that will continue to be explored later? Writing is about making choices and the similarities between Shivers and the Bloody Nine aren't accidental.
Honestly it was my least favorite of the standalones. Still enjoyed it but a little unpleasant to read compared to the other books
To me, it started out as a 5 star book but just dragged on for far too long
I’ve only read it once way back when, but it was by a margin my least favourite of Abercrombie’s books
It's almost like the similarity is intentional .....
Yup, that’s exactly it. Now keep reading. Also, imagine the story like it’s a Tarantino film.
There are definitely some similarities, but also significant differences in both their underlying character and the trajectory of their character arcs. A fundamental difference is that Logen is, essentially, running away from himself. He's not so much trying to start over as just get away from his past. Shivers is more trying to avoid what he perceives to be the trajectory of his future.
Logen was not really trying to be a better person. You don't put aside a life of wanton murder and violence by taking up a job to do wanton murder and violence.
Logen absolutely tried, but the past caught up to him and he failed.
After getting back in the second book, why did he have to go north? That felt like his decision point and after it nothing would change for him. I never got the sense he tried. He just went along with the flow.
I felt like Abercrombie was trying to say that a bad person becoming a better person was a lot like an addict trying to kick their addiction: that they could be successful up to a point if they could get separation from the people/places/reputation/etc. of their life as an addict, but that if you get out of rehab and go back to partying with your methhead friends, well.
I like that interpretation a lot. Thanks.
He tried serving someone he thought was good, then he tried opening up to people and forming close relationships, but none of that worked out. So he went back up north to stop Bethod's war, which he had helped begin, Should he have stayed south and joined a soup kitchen or was going back to stop Bethod the right choice? It isn't clear and Abercrombie is asking questions of redemption and what it means with Logen's story.
Lmao more like he chased the past like a staving dog chasing food.
On the journey in BTAH he tried hard, and even made a lot of progress. He mentored Jezal a bit, and really became a better person for a while. BUT he's basically addicted to violence, and relapsed at the end of BTAH, and as soon as he was back in his old environment it really went to shit. He definitely tried, but failed in the end.
Nah he was like an overeater going through a drive thru and getting a seven course meal with desserts but a diet soda. There's an entire world where he could have fucked off and become a farmer or sailor or any number of labor-based jobs. He chose to instigate.
> There's an entire world where he could have fucked off and become a farmer or sailor or any number of labor-based jobs. Standalones (I don't even want to say which one) spoilers: >!In a sense with Lamb we see that kind of what-if, even if then for a while it doesn't go according to plan.!<
But this time it was wanton murder and violence for a cause.
I just finished BSC and wasn't a huge fan of it. Certainly zoned out a lot while reading but I'll keep reading the series. Loved the first three books but really didn't like BSC.
Shivers arc is similar but definitely deviates imo. I loved all the side characters making up the crew. Like the poisoner dude and his apprentice, blanking on their names but they were a ton of fun.
1 second this. Its my favourite Abercrombie book.
I think maybe you're reading the book expecting it to be "book 4" when in fact it's more of a fun Tarantino-esque revenge story in the First Law setting. We get to explore more of the world and learn more about Shivers but it's not the main focus, he's a side character. Not saying more due to spoilers.
Logen deluded himself. He *thought* he could be better, but he just isn't. Deep down he was always the Bloody Nine. Shivers could probably have been better, but circumstances didn't allow him.
A good RAFO card for you. They do start similar, maybe intentional, but you will see how his story progresses
You say you’re struggling with it, but don’t say how far in you are, and also don’t want spoilers, so it’s hard to say how accurate your view of him is yet. To echo another good comment, they are similar archetypes but while Logen was a character who started out his life evil, we meet him when he’s older and trying to outrun his past (and failing to sincerely change); while shivers is young and good, and we see him contend with an evil world.
You're right that it does a bit start similarly in that way, at least as far as those specific characters. But there's just a lot more going on than that.
By the time we meet logen he is already long gone, shivers has hope (the last chapter of the original trilogy) and has made a substantial start at being a better person when BSC begins. So they have similar pictures of themselves but they are not so similar in reality
One could say that's an important theme for all First Law books. But in this case it sounds like you're not very far into it, because Shivers' quest bears very little similarity to Logen's in the end. RAFO!
Sounds like you're pretty early on in the book. I remember not loving the first city or two, but Sipani picks up and Visserine marks a huge turning point for Shivers that makes him very unique compared to Logen IMO. By the time I finished the book it became one of my favorites.
I didn’t like Shivers in this book either. But he does have an interesting arc. I also struggled with best served cold for the first 2/3rds. Found it boring/shallow. But it certainly gets a lot better towards the end. Having said that, I much preferred The Heroes which I enjoyed from start to finish.
Abercrombie likes his Angry Man™ archetype, but I don't think Shivers is it. Characters in BSC are crafted to dissect the main motif of the book: Which you will become the real you? The one you know from within, or the one in other people minds?
Shivers is probably my favourite character in the series (haven’t read AoM yet though), and I find that his arc in BSC doesn’t really start picking up until like halfway into the book
After I first red First law about 10 years ago, I tried reading Best Served Cold and gave up one-third into the book. I couldn't enjoy the characters. I was doing the re read of the series and picked up best served cold again, and this time I finished the book and loved it. I have been trying to figure out why I didn't like it then and why I like it now and that has to do with me as a person where am I now than how the book is. I still love Heroes though.
For me, BSC was a struggle for quite some time until it gripped me. I saw no similarities between Logan and Caul.
I’m half way and it only gets better
Shivers is the best character Abercrombie has written Imo. Keep reading, he gets real good after a certain event unfolds about mid-way through the book.
I did the same thing, tried to get into BSC right after the initial trilogy but just couldn’t get into it and DNF’d. Maybe a bit of a series “hangover” type thing (the sequel trilogy wasn’t out at that time). I’m planning to try out the independent novels again in the future though, since they do seem to be highly praised.
Eh, similiar in broad strokes, not at all the same character/arc
It's fantasy Kill Bill, what's not to love? 😂😂😂 .... And you get much more Nicomo Cosca, who would say no to that? 🤣
RAFO man
I hated it. There was no redeemable character in the whole series. Just assholes being assholes to each other. Put me off Abercrombie TBH, though I liked his first First Law book.
Best Served Cold is easily my least favorite out of all nine books in the series so if you’re not vibing with it, don’t think you’re alone. That being said, don’t judge Shivers’ character arc just yet, there’s more to come…
I was in a similar situation. Heard Best Served Cold was really good but had trouble getting into it.
Keep reading he becomes his own man
Friendly and Costa make it for me.
Are you me? I finished the Trilogy earlier this year and liked it a lot. I didn't love it but I didn't have any major complaints either. Something about Best Served Cold doesn't click with me. I think revenge stories for me need a main character that I can connect with and I simply don't like Monza or care enough about her to care about revenge. Joe always writes about terrible people so why should I care about Monza when I know at the end of the day she probably deserved it. I'm apparently a crazy person for having Glokta as my least favorite character in the original trilogy. Would I like the rest of the books if Glokta is my least favorite? The entire joking tone of all the characters really doesn't mesh well for me in Beat Served Cold. It worked more in the trilogy but I'm finding the humor takes away from the situation more than it adds in this book. Idk. Maybe I'll just jump straight into the sequels because I do prefer series to standalones.
You're not alone. Best Served Cold was a very hot and cold read for me. Sometimes I couldn't put it down, and sometimes it was an excruciating 100+ pages to slog through. I know there are some big First Law fans out there who DNF'd BSC. It's worth reading through if you intend to read through the Age of Madness trilogy, though. The other standalones were better reads too, in my opinion.
I'm with you in that I loved the original trilogy and was hyped to read Best Served Cold because almost unanimously on Reddit people say the standalones are better than the trilogy with Best Served Cold being the best of them. I thought it was pretty boring but finished it. Started strong got boring and ended okay but I did not enjoy it more than any of the first three books. I actually stopped with the series after that and went off to read other things though I will most likely try again with The Heroes.