How does the monopoly's deadweight loss affect market surplus and the economic pie? Source: p 312, Principles of Microeconomics (7 Ed, 2014) by N G Mankiw


  Welfare in a monopolized market, like all markets, includes the welfare of both
  consumers and producers. Whenever a consumer pays an extra dollar to a producer
  because of a monopoly price, the consumer is worse off by a dollar and the
  producer is better off by the same amount. $\color{red} {[1.]} $ This transfer from the consumers of the
  good to the owners of the monopoly does not affect the market’s total surplus—
  the sum of consumer and producer surplus. In other words, the monopoly profit
  itself represents not a reduction in the size of the economic pie but merely a bigger
  slice for producers and a smaller slice for consumers. Unless consumers are
  for some reason more deserving than producers—a normative judgment about
  equity that goes beyond the realm of economic efficiency—the monopoly profit is
  not a social problem.
  
  The problem in a monopolized market arises because the firm produces and
  sells a quantity of output below the level that maximizes total surplus. $\color{green} {[2.]  \text { The
deadweight loss measures how much the economic pie shrinks as a result. }} $ This
  inefficiency
  is connected to the monopoly’s high price: Consumers buy fewer units
  when the firm raises its price above marginal cost. But keep in mind that the profit
  earned on the units that continue to be sold is not the problem. The problem stems
  from the inefficiently low quantity of output. Put differently, if the high monopoly
  price did not discourage some consumers from buying the good, it would raise
  producer surplus by exactly the amount it reduced consumer surplus, leaving
  total
  surplus the same as could be achieved by a benevolent social planner.


On p 311, Mankiw discusses the deadweight loss (hereafter DWL) of a monopoly, which 2 above concerns. So what does 1 mean? It appears to contradict 2. DWL reduces the total market's surplus, and so the size of the economic pie.
Consider the following two examples:

There is a consumer who is willing to pay 50 dollars for a good. (Reservation price is 50.) There is a seller who is willing to sell for 30 dollars. (Marginal cost is constant 30.) If they make a deal at any price $p$ the total surplus they enjoy will be $(50 - p) + (p - 30) = 20.$ The individual surpluses need only be non-negative because otherwise one party would probably not consent to the deal. The price that is finally reached depends on their bargaining power. With a monopoly all the bargaining power is on the seller's side, so the price would be $p = 50$. Total surplus is still 20. So there's no loss.

However if there are two consumers, one with a reservation price of 50 and the other with 31 then at price 50 only one of them (the former) will buy the good. At price 30, both of them would buy the good and total surplus would be $(50 - 30) + (31 - 30) + (30 - 30) = 21$. But the monopoly's profit is 20 dollars if it sets $p = 50$, and 0 dollars if it sets $p = 30$. So it will choose the former. Because of uniform pricing, a good that would increase the total surplus is unsold, creating deadweight loss.