March '07 Fantasy BOTM: The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch

To be honest, I've never been much into fantasy. However, I really, REALLY enjoyed this book. Lynch does a wonderful job of creating a highly believable world peopled by equally believable characters. A terrific mix of dark humor and high adventure, made all the more impressive by the fact that this is the young author's first book. I understand the sequel is coming out sometime this Summer and I fully intend to pick it up.

A couple of points of discussion I'd like to bring up -

1. If Locke’s actions were such an affront to the Thiefmaker’s reputation, so much so that the Thiefmaker would exact revenge on all of Locke’s accomplices, why was Locke spared? Surely, it wasn’t for the money since Locke was practically given away. And if anyone was an affront to the Thiefmaker’s rep, it was Locke more than anyone.

2. Why the double-ruse of the Midnighter? Was it to keep the game in play in the event the Duke grew suspicious when he didn’t see any ships?

3. Given the way the innocent, mind washed guards were tortured by Barsavi, and give the fact hat the Grey King had murdered Nazca, why didn’t Barsavi torture the s**t out of the captured Grey King (aka Locke) instead of conveniently locking him in the piss-filled casket and dumping him in the drink? This beat felt all too convenient.

4. If the whole point was to set up Locke to take the fall as the Grey King, why block the crossbow bolts from killing him immediately? Why risk allowing him to be captured to spill the beans?
 
this book didnt live up to all its hype for me....dont get me wrong it was a good book but nothing special.

I thought the whole set up for the theives in the city seemed too much/advanced etc, they seemed the most important people in the city to me.....just seemed a bit OTT.

I started liking the book once locke got in the sh1* with the grey king, things got good for me then


so i have bigger hopes for the next book which i beleive will move away from this 1 city.
 
Now here's a book that I didn't feel lived up to its hype. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't one of my top books of last year. Did the hype have anything to do with that? I'm not sure - I tend not to take expectations into a book with me, so wasn't disappointed by this book, more intrigued as to why it was so popular.
Maybe part of this is what people have been calling the "cinematic style" of the book. I take it these claims are because it's presented in media res (or maybe because it utilises two forms we often see in cinema and don't often see in epic fantasy - the heist and the revenge).
I believe some of the hype stemmed from the romance of an unknown author being picked up from a sample posted on a messageboard. All those other budding author wannabes out there on boards like this got to live the dream (albeit vicariously) through Scott Lynch. It was definitely interesting at the time to see a guy who loved talking about his burgeoning career as a firefighter and novelist have both take of at the same time. The sale of the rights to the movie just kept the ball rolling.

In regards to the characters, Locke didn't quite hit the mark for me. Sure, he's supposed to be the likeable thief with the heart of gold (and I'm sure that some executive will be chasing Brad Pitt to play Locke in the movie given his appearances in Snatch and the Ocean movies - if the rights are ever executed that is ), but it just didn't work for me. Whie at times his audaciousness was impressive, I found it was often overhadowed by his arrogance. Jean though, was a much more likeable character.

There were a few elements that were obvious placeholders for future books as well, such as the references to Locke's old flame (if she turns up in the second book as the Julia Roberts role out of Ocean's Eleven I'll scream). Adding detail to flesh out a character one thing, setting yourelf up for a series is another.

Interespersing Locke's past with the current story was an effective technique, usually fleshing out some aspect of the city or Locke that added to the current story. It also added nicely to the conclusion, with Locke holding on and waiting for Jean. Which brings me to another aspect of the story that didn't quite work for me - the suspension of disbelief necessary for some of Locke's exploits to work. For someone to have poisoned themselves to the point they're violently ill, been beaten by an angry mob, survived what would have been enough time to drown most normal people in a sealed barrel of horse piss, be posioned (again) and still pull off elaborate disguises and beat the bad guys just doeesn't ring true. I'd appreciate a little more consistency than that.

Looking back over that post, ity's mostly negative, which is funny considering I did enjoy the book.

On to the questions later....
 
Here's part of what I posted on my blog after I read the book:

I loved the alternating chapters, between Lock’s “now” and his youth with Chains. It is a good technique to shuffle the reader’s perceptions about the characters with each past revelation. It also worked to build the tension enough at the end of each chapter with the slight shift in tone from past to present.

The book reminded me in parts of Steven Brust, Goodfellas, Matthew Stover and the film Snatch. This works great for me since I love Brust and Stover’s writing and count Goodfellas as one of my top 10 favorite films.
 
Which makes for an interesting point Rob - over the years I've seen you comment on a lot of novels, yet this is the only one I can recall you comparing to a movie, let alone two.
What evoked Goodfella's and Snatch for you? Was it the style? The plot elements? Something else I didn't mention earlier?
 
I think Locke's crew reminded me a bit of Henry Hill's crew in Goodfellas. As was already mentioned, Lynch does have something of a cinematic style, too.

Snatch had the same type of gangster feel, in that the focus characters were notorious, but not quite the baddest of the bad. I found the snappy/snarky dialogue to be similar, as well.
 
I'm going to echo Eventine's sentiments- For me, this book was far from the best book of 2006, and definiely overrated.
My main gripe is that it doesn't seem to be one of those books that can re-read countlessly and enjoyed; it seems much closer to a Steven Brust (popcorny fantasy) rather than a Martin. (rare wine?)
 
I think we can (mostly) all agree this was a fun read. But, really, nowhere close to what I was expecting given the hype. I will definitely read future works by Scott Lynch, but no way I'm shelling out for the hardback editions.

In the first third of the novel, Lynch uses a lot more of the flashback technique, but sometimes the effect feels choppy. As the novel progresses, he relaxes into what feels like a more natrual style for him and the writing improves. I think it's his heavy initial use of flashbacks that makes the novel feel so movie-esque. I suspect that as he continues to employ this style, his ability will improve and the choppy effect oughta diminish.

As previous posters have brought up there are some WTF moments with the plot's plausability. The whole scene with Locke impersonating the Grey King- it really stretches the imagination that Locke would survive. Still, the novel improves immensely for me after that as well. Locke is no longer some sort of super James Bond like invincible character. This is when I started to really find his character vulnerable and therefore likeable. I also appreciate that Lynch let main supporting characters die (though I'll miss the twins:)). And speaking of deaths, there was a lot of violence overall for my taste. To be fair, I never found it gratuitous. Just more than I care for.

Anyone else feel terribly strongly about the violence/death here?

All the indirect references to Sabetha were clearly a teaser for things to come in subsequent novels. My pet peeve is that I felt Lynch should either have been more indirect/circumspect about it or fleshed out the character in a flashback so it didn't feel so irrelevant to the novel. The way it was, I felt the whole "not a subplot about my former romance" was out of place and stuck out like a sore thumb.
 
the 'hype' was over-played. This was a very slick, fast-paced, enjoyable novel with some well written passages and nice turns of phrases but it was no Martin, Kay or even Erikson. I like it for what it is: a solid epic/secondary world fantasy novel which can be read and enjoyed without having to cringingly turn a blind eye towards the attrocious pacing/dialogue/setting/description. I'll take this over a VanderMeer or a Hal Duncan any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Sabetha was a nice tease. Definitely needs pay-off in the second novel however! I actually liked the fact that she was mentioned so carelessly, it adds a whole new dimension to the world building aspect IMO. (and is a better way of doing so than the pretty boring references to the death/destruction wrought by the mages on whatever boring king/city decided to oppose them.
 
So throwing the raw meat into the lion's den, if the book had not had all the hype, would it be better for you? This is the first book from a new writer, don't forget.

I guess the acid test is in, let's say 10 years time, when all the hype has died down, would you (or others new to Fantasy) read it and see it as a 'good' book?

Red Skies seems to be getting less hype: does this mean that it should be better in your view? Second book from a writer developing his craft = less hype = its expectations are less. (Basically, it has to be as good or better than the first.)

Slightly off topic, I know: but I'm interested. :)

Hobbit
 
I wasn't really in tune with hype, but that is just how I work with everything, be it books, fashion, games or whatever ...

If I like what I see, I buy, simple as that. With Lies of Locke Lamora, I think I read it in a day, or near enough to a twenty four span. Why? Becasue it was a very good book, the best of 2006? for me it was one oft he best books i'd read released that year, but then again i've only read about half a dozen.

But it was funny, quirky, quick paced, and it had good characters and a good plot. There were a few detractions, as others have noted, the near death defying activities of Locke, came across as slightly implausible on occasions, and I shifted uncomfortable in my seat sometimes when the story wrapped up so neatly, its had that cushy feel of everything being wrapped up nicely in one volume, the trouble averted, the bad guy slain, city saved, and all that.

I would of liked Lynch not to have packed so much into one book, though I did enjoy the breathless, breakneck speed of the whole thing, I felt that in the end it was just too neat and in a way contrived, so as a lasting impression was lost. I realised that what i'm saying I liked is what I found to detract, but that was essentially the paradox I found.

I have a feeling Red Skies won't be as good, just a niggly whisper, I hope it will be better than tLoLL or the same standard, or suitably different but because of how well its been recieved, that could work against it, or alterantively for it, RSURS could be incredible, but we'll soon see. Or whoever gets their hands on a ARC first and then starts hailing its greatness or alternatively (hopeflly not) its downfalls.
 
Gildor said:
I realised that what i'm saying I liked is what I found to detract, but that was essentially the paradox I found.
Click to expand...

Very similar for me. I read the book in no time and enjoyed it immensely. I think Lynch is a terrific writer and has created a world and characters that truly come alive in the narrative. I also appreciated the fact that this book contained a healthy dose of dark humor, something sorely lacking in a lot of genre fiction. I was bothered by a number of plot conveniences (as listed in my previous post) but they weren't enough to taint my overall enjoyment of the TLoLL.

Finally, I didn't know anything abou the book before reading it (I don't read that much fantasy and simply wandered over to this Fantasy book club as it was selected as a book of the month) and, afterwards, was even more impressed by the fact that Scott is a first-time writer. His first book was great and, as he continues to hone his craft, I have no doubt that his next books will be even better.
 
Well, I guess I'm the only one who was influenced by the hype. Not so much that I expected something better, so much as something different/ really original. I would definitely read more Lynch in the future- just not in hardback. He's fun and certainly not without a lot of imaginative touches, but the hype had me thinking this was going to be really out of the ordinary, which it is not. Still this is his debut, and I'll be interested to see how his style progresses.
 
By far my favorite passages in this book were the flashbacks. I think I would have really enjoyed a book all about Locke's childhood and youth. As an adult ... I never really warmed to him. I was reminded quite a bit of The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells, where I was much more intrigued by the back story than by the story itself.
 
You may want to keep your eye out for the novella's Scott has bee contracted to write then - I read somewhere that the first will deal with Locke and Jean acquiring the brandy used in their con in this book.
 
Hobbit said:
So throwing the raw meat into the lion's den, if the book had not had all the hype, would it be better for you? This is the first book from a new writer, don't forget.

I guess the acid test is in, let's say 10 years time, when all the hype has died down, would you (or others new to Fantasy) read it and see it as a 'good' book?
Click to expand...

Well, I have to say I picked it up largely due to WHO was hyping it, not just that it was being hyped. The crowd that Lynch was grouped with are authors that I quite like (it's all a little faded now, but I'm thinking Vandermeer, especially). In light of that, I was expecting greater things from this. I certainly don't think the hype diminished it in any way for me. I just don't think I thought it was as great as many people seemed to. I'd characterize as a fun romp...and there's nothing wrong with that. But I'm not going to reread a fun romp within the next five years or maybe ten or maybe ever...I'd certainly not see it as anything less in a few years, but I don't feel like it's the kind of book that will give me wildly new things as I approach it again later in life.

As to Red Skies, I'll probably wait on it until I find it somewhere cheap or in paperback. There are plenty of things I really want to read, and Lies didn't sell me on Lynch having to be a hardback in my collection (of course, as space is more and more limited, the criteria for that is getting more and more stringent).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top