September book study: The Lies of Locke Lamora

Fenika · Sep 7, 2008

Right, I guess I'll get this ball rolling.

This thread is for discussion of The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch. ***Spoilers*** will be streaking through this thread unpredictably. You have been warned.

If anyone wants to compare to previous book studies:
Ender's Game (August)

Thank you to Broken Fingers for starting the book club!

Cheers,
Christina

Fenika · Sep 7, 2008

Here is the list, compiled by Fingers, of possible discussion topics. Feel free to tackle something off the list or come up with your own points.

-----------

First of all: Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?
What was your impression of it?

And I’ll list some of the possible things we can discuss:

The Beginning:
- How effective was the opening hook?
- How effective was the first sentence? The first paragraph? The first page? The first chapter?
- When were you pulled into the author’s world? By the end of the first chapter?
- If not, when?
- How do you think this was accomplished? Or why do you think it wasn’t accomplished?
- What would you have done to change it/make it better?
- If you were an editor, what would your reaction be to the first chapter?
- Why do you think the average reader liked it so much?
And more…

The Protagonist:
- What did you like/dislike about the protagonist?
- How did the author introduce the protagonist?
- How did the author get you to become invested in the protagonist?
- What was different about the protagonist as opposed to other protagonists? What was the same? Did the author make the protag distinguishable? If so, how?
- What techniques did the author use to show the protagonist throughout the story?
- What were some of the characteristics the author gave the character and how did they work/not work?

The Characters:
- Did the author make the characters come alive for you?
- How did he/she do this?
- How were they described?
- How were they distinctive?
And more…

The Setting:
- Was the author’s world convincing?
- Did he/she make you feel you were there? How?
- What about the setting did you like? Not like?
- What would you have done differently?
And more….

The Plot/Story:
- Did you enjoy it? Why or why not?
- Was it different or similar to other plotlines in the genre? How?
- Was it believable? Predictable?
- Were there any twists, turns or surprises?
- Would you have thought of it? How does it compare to your own plotline of your WIP?
- Did it pull you through or did you have to wade through it?
- How was this done or how do you think it should’ve been done?
- If you were buying stories for a publisher, and this manuscript hit your desk (not knowing what you do now about its sales) would you have bought it or expected it to be successful?
- Why do you think the buying public enjoyed it so much?
- What variations, if any, would you have added to the storyline/plot?
And more…

The Style:
- What did you think of the author’s style of writing? Like it? Hate it?
- How much do you think this had to do with the success of the book, if any?
- What type of POV was used? How effective was it? Would the book have turned out different if the POV were done differently?
- How removed was the author from the story or how intrusive?
And more…

The Structure:
- How did the author unfold the story?
- Were the beginning, middle and end equally strong?
- How effective was the way the author gave you all the information?
Was it straightforward? Suspenseful? Predictable? Surprising?
- Could it have been done another way?
- Was it a linear structure or did the scenes jump around? How did this add/detract from the story or your enjoyment of it?
And more…..

The Theme:
- Was there any? What was it?
- Did you think it had an impact on your enjoyment of the story?
- Was it blatant or subtle?
- Do you think the average reader registered this?
- Do you think it may have affected him/her or contributed in any way to the success of the book?
And more…

Conflict:
- What was the main conflict?
- How was it handled?
- Was it a large part of the story or did the author keep it lying under the surface?
- What other conflicts did the author use in the story and when? (Internal and external.)
- What purpose did they serve?
- Would the story have been as enjoyable with less conflict? More?
- What types of conflict could’ve added to the story? Which conflicts subtracted from the story?
And more…

Dialogue:
- Was it realistic?
- Was it readable?
- How did the author handle ‘tags’?
- Was there a lot of dialogue or a little?
- Were there dialects? Slang? Profanity? Vulgarity?
And more…

The Ending:
- Was it satisfying? Why or why not?
- Did it come as a surprise or did you see it coming from page two?
- Would you have ended it the same?
- Was everything resolved?
- Would you be able to write a sequel?
- Would you buy another book from this author?
And more….

Mr Flibble · Sep 7, 2008

OK I posted this a few months ago while I was actually reading it - though I didn't name it at the time

Doing it all wrong -- and getting it right
So, we've all seen the 'rules' that as writers we should follow. Write tight. Too much backstory is bad mmkay? If it's your first novel, don't go over 100K ( or 120 odd if it's SFF). Get inside the character's head. Avoid filter words. Get the plot moving and keep it moving. If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in. Avoid excessive description. Use your grammar: ing clauses are to be used sparingly. No run on sentences.

So I'm reading a book at the mo that breaks every single one.

Write tight? Often a dozen words are used when five would do.

Not too much backstory? Between each chapter is an often lengthy chunk of backstory and / or an authorial aside.

Don't have your word count too high? A debut novel, and a quick, and very conservative estimate would put this at least 180k - possibly as much as 200k.

Get inside the character's head? It's written in third, and while it isn't omni, we don't get inside their heads much either, so it's not limited. It's kind of ...third person vague.

Avoid filter words? If these were all cut, the book would proably be 5k shorter.

Get the plot moving? Well the end of the first act was about half way. Then the poop hit the fan for fifty pages. The next fifty pages have been....nothing much in the way of plot. The MC is planning, but I don't know what he's planning because of the POV vague thing. He's wearing a very nice ( and minutely described) jacket though.

If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in. Avoid excessive description? Well I know the exact ingredients of every meal the MC has eaten -- in fact I could probably write out the recipies. The clothes are described down to the last stitch. Everything is described. Each district of the city is laid out, whether the MC goes there or not -- and tbh I can't keep all the names straight in my head.

Use your grammar: 'ing clauses are to be used sparingly. No run on sentences. Ings are sprinked over the page like hundreds and thousands. Comma / semi colon splicing is so common I'm beginning to wonder if the author's keyboard has an intermittent problem with the full stop key.

So, given all this, why the hell am I enjoying it so much?

Fenika · Sep 7, 2008

Very nice post IRU. I guess the question is: Why did you keep turning the pages? What drew you in despite all that?

Cheers,
Christina

AnnieColleen · Sep 7, 2008

I think they stuck something addictive between the pages before they shipped it out. This was an impulse buy -- the title and the cover blurb got me -- and I've been stuck on it off and on ever since. ("part Robin Hood, part Ocean's Eleven" -- 'nuff said.) There are parts that I can't read without my author-brain kicking in -- but seeing (assuming) what the author is doing doesn't make a difference.

Part of this I think is that I like the trickster character type. Another part is that I like the worldbuilding and 'peeking around corners'*, particularly since I'm working on something now that requires extensive worldbuilding. (*I want to do this all the time, in my own writing or others', far beyond what's 'right for the story'. Like for instance: I wanna see Locke's other capers!)

Let's see...

That was a heck of a first line.
* World-building -- the date (Seventy-seventh Year of Sendovani)
* World-building and interesting characters -- the Thiefmaker of Camorr and the Eyeless Priest at the Temple of Perelandro.
* Instant conflict and worldbuilding -- desperately hoping to sell him the Lamora boy. (Mildly interested in the mention of Lamora here, but more because I know he's the MC. By context, all the rest sounds a lot more interesting.)
The rest of the conversation reinforces the above.

I didn't notice that this was a prologue until I reread. Likewise with the "interludes" between chapters.

The one place I noticed where misdirection worked was the first "Midnighters" scene. That was one place where the author-brain kicked in -- "Ok, here he goes, raising the stakes; how's Locke gonna handle this?" No notion that Locke was behind this. It's still one of my favorite scenes, I think because of the trickster character again -- seeing Locke put on another face. The other place I didn't pick up the clues was the whole business with his name. (Though, in fairness, there were precious few clues for either one!)

The back-and-forth-and-all-over structure I think is one that readers would either be ok with or strongly dislike. I didn't mind it. (Except when I wanted to reread a particular part -- we should all have such problems!) As I said, didn't even notice the structural divisions at first. I think it was a good way to reveal information (via young Locke learning it) that was then relevant later, without either dumping it in the middle of the action or leaving too much space between the learning and the later action.

A couple of places did get annoying -- the handball match, the history of the Guilded Lilies, the history of the Bondsmagi (though that was slightly more relevant). I was willing to follow each of them on first read, to see where they were going, but was not too thrilled with them when I found out. The history of the Palace of Patience, too. (Locke crosses a bridge, not only pondering, but recalling history lessons? Uh, no.) Skimmed that section.

I thought the scene with the Grey King alone, watching his ship burn, was well-done ('Mother and Father wouldn't have cried...') Good job at giving the villain an empathetic moment...and yet I'm still fully rooting against him when the confrontation comes.

One thing that bugged me was the ever-present/never-present Sabetha. We know she's crazy, born queen of the charmers, and Locke's single-heartedly in love with her...and? Not one appearance on-page? The single-heartedness was kinda cool, making him different from other characters, added some humor vs. Dona Sofia. Having her not around for the final conflicts worked; adding another layer of pressure would've been too much. But not even one appearance as a child? C'mon.

Also: don't :rant:

kill off characters I like! This was actually sort of an odd reaction -- author-brain and reader-brain in disagreement. I could see exactly why he did it -- it fit the characters, fit the world, raised the stakes on Locke (needing to avenge them, losing the advantages he was used to, etc.), increased tension for the later conflicts. Reader-brain didn't care. No other reaction there except :rant:

. I guess that means he succeeded in building unique, likeable characters!

Thought I had something else, but I'm being summoned elsewhere. More later, probably/maybe.

Gray Rose · Sep 7, 2008

This book was very skillfully written and I loved the experimental back-and-forth technique. As such, I wanted to like this book, but I did not find the main character at all sympathetic. I guess I just have an aversion to characters who are roguish because they just cannot help it. The never-ending deceptions did not entertain me enough to love it. This is a personal preference.

Dawnstorm · Sep 8, 2008

I quite enjoyed reading the book. It's a fun romp from beginning to end. There were no parts that dragged.

I found the characters were well-described and believable, but I didn't invest too much emotion into them, to be honest. Similarly, the plot is such straight forward trickster stuff that I didn't find myself surprised once where I should have been surprised. In the Midnighter's scene, for example, I sat back and thought, well, if that was me writing the book, I would... let's see. And I was right.

I thought the "true name" stuff was weak. Not because the bondmage made that mistake; there would have been so much potential in that. I mean Lokce's question is a good one. Why would the bondmage assume his first name was one he was given? The explanation for that question could have fleshed out the setting more, but as far as I can remember that was never addressed.

Take the setting. Locke comes from the poor part of town. He's an orphan. Chances are good, he doesn't even know his true name. Parents could have died before he had a chance to understand the concept of names, he could have been passed around etc. I expect a big ratio of people in slums who don't know their true names, have forgotten them, or never had one to begin with.

Then take the bondmage. He would have moved in circles all his life where people use names to sign contracts, where people take pains to hide their true identities, etc. Perhaps, he's also used to "flamboyant" people, people who associate with their names as identity? Perhaps it's a common ego-error to stick with your first name?

The bondmage's error would have been a predictable one, and he might have even judged "Locke" correctly, but didn't count on his name being one that e.g. singles him out for teasing. My own preference would have been that Locke has no idea what his "true name" is. Or follows a things-are-what-they-are-regardless-of-the-name philosophy on account from being raised in the slums ("names" are an upperclass thing, really - and class distinctions do feature in the novel).

There was potential, but all we get is a lame joke about "Locke's" real name. Nah, that was weak.

Next: I thought is was a bit of a boy's buddy book. Hot chicks kick butt and then die. You have an alibi female friend, but she's put out of the way soon enough. The "true love" is important but absent (I got Don Quixote - Dulcinea vibes - mock chivalry). The interesting surviving female characters are mom and grandma - safely out of your age range. Guy friendships illicit fierce emotional reactions, but when your one female friend dies you're - you know - miffed. Oh, yeah, I forgot: prostitutes laugh at you. (That was one strange scene. If I was an editor, I'd have suggested cutting it.)

I quite liked the way that the Gentlemen Bastards were more bastards than gentlemen (which - to them - means basically comfort - rather selfishly). Locke's decision to prioritise saving the peple of Camorr was the one departure from that, but it worked for me, mostly because we got Locke's reaction to the zombie animals earlier. That sort of existance must be a private nightmare. And a city full of pliable zombies... No fun!

But the star of the book was, IMO, the City of Camorr and the larger world outside hinted at. The Spider Cages, The House of Glass Roses, Locke's northerner's outfit unsuited for the climate... Heck, you could cook some of the dishes mentioned, if only you could find the ingredients. This book is a world-building gem riding on decent plotting and characterisation.

Finally, I found the language flowed well. I love the cheeky way metaphors are used - reminds me a bit of Alice Cooper stage shows. "In the House of Glass Roses, there was a hungry garden." (p. 257 in my Gollancz edition). Also, the title "The Boy who Cried for a Corpse" (or something like that) describing a scam plays wonderfully with reader expectations.

Mr Flibble · Sep 8, 2008

Bahamutchild said:
Very nice post IRU. I guess the question is: Why did you keep turning the pages? What drew you in despite all that?

Cheers,
Christina

Hmm I don't know. At the stage I wrote that I was still quite enjoying it, but I didn't love it.

I think the thing for me that really turned me off was the POV vague thing. I felt distanced emotionally from the characters, so I didn't really care enough.

I can understand why that was done that way in this book though - (or we'd have known what Locke had up his sleeve), it's just a personal preference of mine. I need to connect emotionally with the MC, I need to feel what he feels rather than get it in a vague second hand kind of way. I never felt I was in there with them, never forgot that I was being told a story.

And that's probably why I won't buy another.

Dawnstorm · Sep 8, 2008

IdiotsRUs said:
I need to connect emotionally with the MC, I need to feel what he feels rather than get it in a vague second hand kind of way.

Does it have to be the MC, though? (If so, I'm out of luck, because the book I'm writing doesn't even have one clear main character.) Thought experiment: what if the book had been written from the PoV of Bug, as an admiring newcomer? (Either 1st or 3rd limited would work)

Btw, the book's pretty straight forward 3rd omni (I'm assuming, for the sake of simplification, that such a thing exists; you can then tell me why it's "3rd vague" - I love that term

). The intro establishes this soon enough:

"At the height of the long wet summer of the Seventy-Seventh Year of Sendovani, the Thiefmaker of Camorr paid a sudden and unannounced visit to the Eyeless Priest at the Temple of Perelandro, desperately hoping to sell him the Lamora boy."

A straightforward introductory sentence, with reference to what the thiefmaker is hoping and that his hope is desperate. Only the thiefmaker would know this. And an omniscient narrator. We know we don't have a 3rd limited situation: "sudden and unexpected" is taking the PoV of the Eyeless Priest, while "desperately hoping" is taking the PoV of the Thiefmaker. The best interpretation of this is: neither viewpoint is taken, but a single narrator narrates from a vantage point.

"'Have I got a deal for you!' the Thiefmaker began, perhaps inauspiciously."

Now, we're slipping into the narrative. The "perhaps inauspiciously" is an in-the-moment comment. Take away the "perhaps", and see how this changes the impression we get. The "perhaps" is about the current situation: he begins his transaction with this line, but it doesn't look like a promising one. Now, the omniscient narrator is taking the "prospective reader's" perspective. He wants you to imagine the scene: The thiefmaker talking and the Eyeless Priest not being impressed. He then follows up with the dialogue.

Modern writing prejudice would say (perhaps via "omit needless words", or "via show, don't tell" - choose your poison) that this is redundant, and thus should be left out. The priest's reaction would do the same thing. But omniscient narrators do that sort of thing all the time; the phrase "perhaps inauspiciously" is priming you for what is to come. You're given a hint to what you should pay attention. I actually found the PoV very skillfully executed and perfect for the story. You're right about the plot angle, but it also allows for more setting excursions, and that's - given my reaction to the book - the more prominent advantage.

A more character-bound PoV might have ruined the book for me.

Mr Flibble · Sep 8, 2008

(I'm assuming, for the sake of simplification, that such a thing exists; you can then tell me why it's "3rd vague" - I love that term ).

Well it starts omni ( in the same way third limited might, to set the scene before it gets in close) I suppose but there is no really clear omni narrator with its own personality, and it wasn't limited so it's between the two.

A narrator who isn't close into the head of the characters, but without a personality of its own. So it's technically third limited omni. I think. Or as I prefer, vague, without the advantages of either, and all the drawbacks. ( imo ofc)

Like I said it's personal preference - to get emotionally involved I have to experience the things with them, forget I'm being told a story and feel like I'm in it. If the story had been written somewhat tighter, without all the reams of description that made my head rebel and forget 90% of the names / sections of the city / what material their coats are made out of / what they had for lunch, then it probably wouldn't have been so much of a problem for me.

BTW, the MC needn't be the POV character.

Like I said - purely my personal preference. There were aspects of the story I really liked, but because the POV was distant I didn't feel really connected.

Dawnstorm · Sep 8, 2008

IdiotsRUs said:
Well it starts omni ( in the same way third limited might, to set the scene before it gets in close) I suppose but there is no really clear omni narrator with its own personality, and it wasn't limited so it's between the two.

A narrator who isn't close into the head of the characters, but without a personality of its own. So it's technically third limited omni. I think. Or as I prefer, vague, without the advantages of either, and all the drawbacks. ( imo ofc)

Thanks, I see now what you mean. (This isn't the place to talk about it, but: what you're describing here - to me - is the core of "omniscient narrators" while "the distinct personality" is the core of the "auctorial narrator", two different concepts that often go hand in hand. Also, I think that omni and limited aren't opposed as much, as they're on a continuum; what's limited in limited is the extent of the narrator's omniscience. This isn't disagreeing so much, as it is a difference of terminology. Sorry, terminology nitpcker's hat comes off.)

Like I said it's personal preference - to get emotionally involved I have to experience the things with them, forget I'm being told a story and feel like I'm in it. If the story had been written somewhat tighter, without all the reams of description that made my head rebel and forget 90% of the names / sections of the city / what material their coats are made out of / what they had for lunch, then it probably wouldn't have been so much of a problem for me.

This is interesting. I, too, didn't feel emotionally invested with Locke. Pretty much every other character was more interesting to me. But, in my case, it wasn't so much the lack of interior access, as it was his... I don't know... school-bookness. It's as if the character collapses under the need to carry the story and plot. Because of Locke being the centre of gravity, all others seemed to revolve around him. I saw Bug and read "cute expandable" on his brow. The twins (boys not girls)? Trusty sidekicks. Sacrificing them is more of a horror move than a fantasy move, but the current gritty fad would pick that one up, so no surprise, there.

Personally, I think if he'd have de-emphasised Locke a bit, Locke could have been a more interesting character. Being the protagonist wasn't good for his characterisation. I think I might have enjoyed the book more if Lynch had subsumed all the characters, including Locke, under the setting. (Locke, the foolhardy orphan thief, rather than Locke the protagonist of an amoral Robin Hood tale. It's there, but doesn't come across well enough.) I'm saying this because I think setting is Lynch's real strength; before characterisation (which is decent enough) and plot (which does little more than serve its function). [Which is pretty much a reversal of what you're suggesting. But then I'm known to have an odd taste.

]

AnnieColleen · Sep 8, 2008

I remembered the other thing I disliked about the book -- Locke's descent into self-pity at the end. Not only was that not resolved, it looks like it carried over as the opening conflict for the sequel. It's a logical option, but when most of what I liked about the character is his audacity and cleverness, and he loses that -- I definitely didn't care for that ending scene.

Kitty Pryde · Sep 8, 2008

I thought the greatest strength of the book was storytelling on the micro-scale--all the vignettes and scenes were really intriguing to me.

Locke's character was the greatest weakness. It felt like all of his flaws were taken out of a Dungeons and Dragons manual-short, puny, stutters, lousy at fighting, has bad luck. He didn't really have any emotional/psychological flaws. He's devoted to one woman, loves his friends and treats them well, has a Robin Hood moral code, isn't at all emotionally screwed up despite being tragically orphaned and tortured into becoming a criminal. For that reason, the other characters, while not as fully-realized in the story as Locke, seemed more human than he did.

I liked the foreshadowing in the story. When he mentions that the Grey King looks familiar to Locke, I was TOTALLY convinced he would turn out to be Locke's father. I was well wrong, though. But he did drop some clues to the Grey King's identity, in retrospect.

rhymegirl · Sep 8, 2008

I've only read about 50 pages so far. My first thought was it reminds me of Oliver Twist. Fagin and the pickpockets. (beginning of novel, that is)

brokenfingers · Sep 8, 2008

I'm about half-way through so am trying not to read the rest of this thread.

But I can say that, for some reason, so far I haven't really warmed up to the book.

I'm trying to think why, but I'm thinking it's the characters and the story (hahahaha! Wow, if that isn't a catchall!) By this I mean that they both seemed out of place to me.

Locke and many of the characters seemed... kinda modernish. I don't quite know how to put it, but it seemed like a TV-movie. They talked like they were out of some modern day movie, with all the cursing etc. (Using phrases like "No shit?" kinda throws me out of the "other time and place' mindframe.)

And Locke seems a little too perfect. I never had any worries for him. Of course, I'm only half way through, but thinking about it, I can see now why internal conflict is so valuable to a main character and really adds to a story. All Locke's conflicts (so far at least) are external and I think that lessens the drama.

For instance, all he has to do is outwit so-and-so and beat so-and-so. But if he also had to lose something he loved or fight against himself or risk the one thing he craved, it would add depth and also cause you to wonder if he'll be able to do it.

As it stands, so far, I have no doubts he'll win. He's basically outwitted everyone so far and won every conflict.

Momento Mori · Sep 10, 2008

I'm almost at the half-way mark with this book and on the whole, I'm enjoying it. It's quite well paced and I like the way that Lynch mixes in the elements of Locke's back story with the on-going on. I also think he's done well in terms of bringing the city and his world to life - I can see the streets and buildings that he's describing and I think the way he incorporates alchemy and magic flows naturally into the text.

If I'm going to nitpick though, the Grey King doesn't get a mention until over 200 pages into the text, which seemed quite late for a character who seems to be the main antagonist in the plot. When he does get mentioned, I got too much of a sense that he was going to be significant from thereonin. I think I might have preferred it if there'd been some scattered mentions of him earlier in the text (if only to introduce him as some kind of mythical bogey man) so that when he turns up in person, it's less jarring.

I'm also in two minds about the swearing in the book - not that I have a problem with swearing generally, but I can't make up my mind whether the repeated use of the f-bomb makes the city feel more or less real. The reason is because Lynch goes to so much trouble to establish the idea that different languages are spoken in the city and it's a city that's kind of late medieval/early modern in terms of historical feel (with a touch of Regency at times) that the use of swear words you hear a lot in our modern world, seems needless. But like I said, I'm in two minds about it.

Otherwise, am enjoying it muchly.

MM

Tachyon · Sep 10, 2008

I'm going to go with AnnieColleen here; these pages have to be laced with some sort of drugs.

I got to the climax this afternoon, then I had to go back to class--and I didn't want to put it down! I finished it as soon as I got home. The conclusion was not as great as I had expected, but I liked how it fit into Locke's character: it built on what had come before, but then it wasn't the exact same--this time, Jean didn't save him; Locke saved himself.

Scott Lynch created a fantastic world reminiscent of Venice, with just a pinch of magic thrown in. I appreciate the fact that he wove it seamlessly into the world, often disguising it as pseudo-science: these are practical people. Magic is a tool. They don't spend a hundred pages discussing the theoretical rules of the author's pet magical system and then debating whether or not the protagonist really is the "Chosen One."

Dawnstorm said:
I thought the "true name" stuff was weak. Not because the bondmage made that mistake; there would have been so much potential in that. I mean Lokce's question is a good one. Why would the bondmage assume his first name was one he was given? The explanation for that question could have fleshed out the setting more, but as far as I can remember that was never addressed.

I loved that moment. I saw it coming, and that made the moment all the sweeter. Seeing Locke get that one turn of good fortune made my heart leap; I read faster to see what he'd do with it--and he didn't disappoint me.

You are right: the Bondsmage made a fatal error. But that was the point. That's the only way Locke could have defeated someone like that. The Bondsmage was working presumably from the Grey King's information--you have to admit, so far the Grey King was having a pretty good success rate. If the Bondsmage had been smarter, perhaps he would have realized what we did. Luckily for Locke he wasn't.

AnnieColleen said:
I remembered the other thing I disliked about the book -- Locke's descent into self-pity at the end. Not only was that not resolved, it looks like it carried over as the opening conflict for the sequel. It's a logical option, but when most of what I liked about the character is his audacity and cleverness, and he loses that -- I definitely didn't care for that ending scene.

Locke needs to feel emotionally exhausted after what he's just been through. He hasn't lost his audacity or his cleverness--how he executed that last con on the Duchess et al. and sunk the ship, that was clever. Then everything was over and Locke had time to reflect. I wouldn't have liked him nearly as much if he had just shrugged this ordeal off--that would make him seem false, and he's not. He plays many other roles, but beneath that all is the clever, audacious Locke who occasionally needs a lesson in humility--this lesson was particularly hard.

I agree with those who mention that the POV could use work. Although I appreciate how Lynch supplies backstory through flashbacks--lots of great showing instead of telling--sometimes it would ruin the unity of the story. For instance, the backstory on Meraggio felt superfluous--I enjoyed it, but at the end of the section I blinked and thought, "Oh. So ... that was interesting. Can we continue with the story?" If that had been cut during editing, I wouldn't have missed it.

My edition includes a brief excerpt from the sequel, and I must say ... it makes me interested to find out how that happens!

Dawnstorm · Sep 10, 2008

Tachyon said:
I loved that moment. I saw it coming, and that made the moment all the sweeter. Seeing Locke get that one turn of good fortune made my heart leap; I read faster to see what he'd do with it--and he didn't disappoint me.

You are right: the Bondsmage made a fatal error. But that was the point. That's the only way Locke could have defeated someone like that. The Bondsmage was working presumably from the Grey King's information--you have to admit, so far the Grey King was having a pretty good success rate. If the Bondsmage had been smarter, perhaps he would have realized what we did. Luckily for Locke he wasn't.

Hi.

Actually, I pretty much agree with what you said here (except that I didn't love the scene, but was more neutral on it). I probably didn't express myself very well. What I think is weak, here, is neither plot nor character; it's setting.

The "true name" business seems somewhat out of place; or at least I have no idea how that magic is supposed to work. Having the "gentleman bastards" as a focus is a brilliant move, as you move from the slums to the upper crust without effort, seeing it all. But the effect is that the novel appears in a social realist tradition, whereas the "true name" business sounds like something out of a mysticist tradition. I'm thinking of animating golems, or fairy tales, demon summonings... But the set-up of the novel suggests "magic light". So naturally, I'm curious on what grounds this should work, here. Especially, since "given names" don't mean the same for baggers and nobles, a very important issue in the novel. Plotwise, this could easily explain the bondmage's mistake, for example: given names are important to nobles, as they tend to pass on their names; and if the bondsmage moves mostly in those circles, the idea of giving up a name - even if it's only a first name - might seem strange - intuitively - to him.
So, I didn't actually think of it as a matter of smarts, but one of overconfidence in combination with different social importance of "given names". (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the bondsmage specifically mentions the "true name" being the one you're given at birth.)

So, fine, Lynch doesn't go into that. I can forgive this, since in the scene there's really not too much time to do it. Unfortunately, though, he picks it up near the end of the novel:

'Oh, fine,' said Locke. 'Get over here.'

Jean stumbled over to the pile of crates on which Locke was lying, and bent down. Locke whispered five syllables into his ear, and Jean's eyes widened.

'You know,' he said, 'I'd have gone with Locke myself in preference to that.'

Okay, first he skips over an interesting and important (to me) part of the setting, and then he returns to the issue for... what? A lame joke?

Since I thought that the setting made the book, this bothered me a bit. Not much, a bit.

Tachyon · Sep 11, 2008

Dawnstorm said:
The "true name" business seems somewhat out of place; or at least I have no idea how that magic is supposed to work.

I agree; when I first read the words "true name," I balked and wondered what they were doing in a novel that so far had not bothered to explain how any of its magic worked. It does strike me as a contrived device. And indeed: if the Bondsmages went around doing this "true name" stuff all the time, wouldn't someone have figured it out and gradually society would have shifted to everyone maintaining public names? (I'm thinking of Earthsea when I say this, of course.)

It felt even more contrived when the Bondsmage uses it again on the Dona Vorchenza. Lynch set her up as one of those formidable characters who outwit their opponents before their opponents even have a chance to confront her. It seemed that moving the plot forward required hand-waving away her opposition with a simple spell.

Lhun · Sep 17, 2008

Momento Mori said:
I'm also in two minds about the swearing in the book - not that I have a problem with swearing generally, but I can't make up my mind whether the repeated use of the f-bomb makes the city feel more or less real. The reason is because Lynch goes to so much trouble to establish the idea that different languages are spoken in the city and it's a city that's kind of late medieval/early modern in terms of historical feel (with a touch of Regency at times) that the use of swear words you hear a lot in our modern world, seems needless. But like I said, I'm in two minds about it.

I kind of liked it. If you take a look across human cultures it becomes apparent that we are not very inventive with our choice of swearwords. Of course, we use different languages, but in a book i always take it for granted that the author "translates" whatever the characters might say into the language he writes in.
Anyway, what drew me in about the Lamora books (read both of them) is hard to pin down, but i think i can agree about the worldbuilding. Lanch manages to really make a rich, colorful world come alive, and most of the characters really fit into it. In that sense it really is like watching a movie, the POV is not really focused on the main characters and story but rather takes panorama pictures.

TPCSWR · Sep 21, 2008

Just finished the book today. I really agree with the fact that worldbuilding was the strong-point of this book. One thing I want to ask is what did everyone else think of the Eldren? I would have liked some form of explanation as to what or who they were exactly, and why they left. That seemed to be the one bit of worldbuilding that I was uncomfortable with.

Regarding the interludes, I really liked their prescence. Almost every one told something useful about the following chapters, but once I understood their pattern what I really looked forward to was that last paragraph or two, where the punchline or moral came in. Especially in the case of the handball game, though I can see why others disliked it.

On true names: that was the only part of this book that struck me as unrealistic; not the reasoning of the mage, but the fact that true names are simply what you're given by your parents, and that it holds so much power.

One last thing. Did anyone else find Locke's revenge on the Gray King's servant(s) and the bondsmage to be offputting? Until then I liked his unusual morals and standards, but the burning of the temple and telling Jean to cut out the mage's tongue even after he told of the plan made me think a lot less of him, though I could put that into the back of my mind and ignore it for the most part.

Anyway, I'll definitely be reading the sequels

Fenika · Sep 22, 2008

First of all- I did not finish the book. One too many jarring moments, and when I finally (after skipping some flashbacks) got to the part where the shark bit what's-his-names arm off, I realized I just didn't care :\

So that said, don't expect too many 'I liked how...' from me

TPCSWR said:
Just finished the book today. I really agree with the fact that worldbuilding was the strong-point of this book. One thing I want to ask is what did everyone else think of the Eldren? I would have liked some form of explanation as to what or who they were exactly, and why they left. That seemed to be the one bit of worldbuilding that I was uncomfortable with.

You know, I figured he'd never explain that. Maybe it's saved for a future book. My biggest gripe with the world building is it was all setting. Aside from the bondsmage, there was nothing I could see that was a critical fantasy element. Am I wrong here? I love fantasy, but I love to see it effect the plot more!

My biggest peeve- he sat there and told me all about the crystal garden with the deadly roses and the blood. On and on. 1 page later, he SHOWS what the roses do. It would have been a million times more effective if he'd cut the tells and let the reader (and maybe the character) learn about the roses at that moment.

That's all for now.

Cheers,
Christina

ELMontague · Sep 29, 2008

So, I'm a little late in the game.

First of all: Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?
Yes, I did enjoy the book and passed it to a friend. I liked the trickster angle.

What was your impression of it?
Sicily or Venice, maybe something of both. I enjoyed the world Lynch created. It will allow many more stories to be told.

And I’ll list some of the possible things we can discuss:

The Beginning:

To be truthful, I kept with this book long enough to get caught because you all voted for it. My first choice would have Name of the Wind, but this one was picked, so I finished the other two ahead of this one and then picked this up last week.

I wasn't actually pulled into the world until he went to meet the Capa and then learned he had to make a death offering for the kids he got killed. As a matter of fact until maybe 2/3rds of the way through the book I thought that would be what he did with his share of the Salvara take. Oh well, I liked what he did.

The Protagonist:

I liked Locke from the beginning. I wanted to identify with him. I especially liked that he was not master of all things. He could screw up and needed help and luck.

The Characters:

I got into all the characters except the sisters. They were kind of one dimensional to me to be so important. He did a great job with the Gentleman Bastards. Although I kept expecting Sabetha to appear at some point. I guess that goes to book 2. I'll read it next month.

The Setting:

The city was my favorite part of the book. He rendered a very believable setting for the story. I enjoyed it. I could picture everything about it. And I even had these images of the other places to go with it.

The Plot/Story:

I thought I knew what he'd do next several times, but only got about half what I was guessing right. It's good to be able to hope for an outcome and then be happy with the results you find, yours or no.

I was a tiny bit disappointed with the final throw with the Falconer and the Sisters. Would have expected more from both.

The Style:

The style was very readable. Although it took me nearly a week to read it and more often a book like this takes about three days. I guess that means it was a little more than my normal choices.

The Structure:

I liked the blend of childhood lessons and adult trials.

The Theme:

I've always liked these.

Conflict:

I think there was something left unfinished about the internal conflict for Locke. We know he grew and learned. We know he was challenged. But there was still something missing. I don't think he was fully restored from his humbling.

And as I said, he teased us with Sabetha but didn't deliver in the end.

Dialogue:

good dialogue

The Ending:

I would have preferred a little more cryptic tell to the Spider about the death offering in the harbor. I caught it the moment he did it, which means I think she would have too. And I don't think he needed to tell us.

Lhun · Sep 30, 2008

@Bahamutchild
I think i understand what you're getting at, the Lamora Books are definitly not High Fantasy. I actualyy don't think Lynch is ever going to explain more about the eldren. After all, that really doesn't matter for the story it just gives a livelier background. I mean, calling it volcanic glass would have worked as well it's not as if it's an important part of the story. As opposed to the bondsmagi who will also appear in the second book and get a bit more exposition.

@ELMontague
I think you'll like the start of the second book if you'Re interested in Locke's development, as the book picks up immediately where the first stopped.
The cliffhanger at the end of the second book is far worse.
As for Sabetha, well, apparently there are seven books planned in total. We can start bets on when she appears.

September book study: The Lies of Locke Lamora

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Invisible Writer

Beware of the Thorns!

punny user title, here

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

punny user title, here

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

punny user title, here

Invisible Writer

i luv you giant bear statue

It's a New Year!

Walkin' That Road

Tired and Disillusioned

punny user title, here

New kid, be gentle!

Unashamed Play School Fan

ELMontague

New kid, be gentle!