I have a lot of complex thoughts on this book. On one hand, I think the characters are strong with compelling arcs even if they were not always the ones I wanted. On the other hand, I was left wanting a lot more from the elements other than characters. I found the plot less engaging compared to The Trouble with Peace, mainly because I found the sociopolitical setup lacking nuance. Part of that is because I could not help but reflect on books that deal with similar simmering class strife while exploring thematic ideas, and in this book, that type of setup is almost exclusively used for character purposes versus trying to make a larger analysis (or if it was, it feels like a rotten way of doing so). I understand that fantasy has not always been the best in exploring these themes through their power struggles, but after reading numerous books that do utilize the sociopolitical setup to further thematic commentary, it was hard not to notice the lack of nuance in Wisdom of Crowds. Another issue I had was with the ending, not in terms of where our main characters end up but in terms of some last-minute reveals that felt unearned. I understand what Abercrombie is trying to accomplish, and it feels interesting at a high level, but it doesn't feel like it belongs within this trilogy because there is so little to setup those particular twists. It feels more driven by shock factor versus something organic to the story itself. My final complaint doesn't have anything to do within the Age of Madness trilogy itself but rather the First Law series as a whole. Throughout the 6 books prior to this, we get a lot of setup of different nations, and the first trilogy also sets up a variety of historical lore. This book does not really capitalize on that at all. Almost all the older generation of characters feel superfluous to the story, many of whom  are only mentioned offscreen. The lore is pretty much completely ignored, and there is no sense of other nations or larger worldbuilding. The standalones feel mostly irrelevant outside of The Heroes, and even that doesn't feel like required reading. In a lot of ways, this feels like a much more standalone series, which is why the ending frustrated me because it is the ONLY thing in this trilogy that feels like it requires context from the first trilogy to truly work. And because Abercrombie wants to maximize shock value, he does not develop that ending in this trilogy, preventing it from fully being standalone even though my recommendation would be to skip all the middling other books and start directly with Age of Madness. Within the scope of the standalone Age of Madness (divorced from the ending and the larger series), I think the trilogy is pretty strong when you focus on the characters. Rikka, Orso, Savine, Vic are all fantastic with interesting interior conflicts and interpersonal relationships. Their dynamics made it so easy to read this trilogy, and there are plenty of moments that feel cathartic and strong due to that character work. Abercrombie might struggle in a lot of other areas, but I feel like character is one area where he has clearly improved exponentially from The Blade Itself. Because of the characters, I still rate Wisdom of Crowds (and Age of Madness as a whole) high even if I feel like it won't become a favorite of mine due to the issues I mentioned. Abercrombie's prose and voice is also very distinct even if it is not the most pleasant to read. He might not be an author I follow going forward, but I am glad I finally read through this entire series despite my quibbles with it.