Anyone else disappointed with Lies of Locke Lamora/Ash?

[Pyan]

I've only read a little of Ash, which seems promising enough - I just couldn't wrap my head around it at the time, so I've put it aside for the time being and will pick it up again once I don't have quite so many other things on my mind.

Good idea - it's a book that deserves concentration, and once you get into it, you'll find that you start puttig off non-essentials (like food and sleep!) for a while.

 

[shadow9d9]

Description is needed to set the scene and that is it... 2/3 of each page dedicated to description is called padding. I don't need THAT much description of a fake place... I just need an amount of description to understand the point of the scene.. describing every detail of the gutters does nothing for me.

Plenty of books have found the balance between too much and not enough- Song of Fire and Ice, Prince of Nothing, Discworld, Vorkosigan series.

I don't buy books to be described non existant worlds.. it just doesn't do it for me. I read books for plot.

 

[anthorn]

I liked the Lies of Locke Lamora, it just pisses me off when Authors wait until page 235 to start the actual plot. Mind you there was more of that in book two than in book 1.

SPOILERS...

I also hate his habit of spending the last 2 pages in wrapping up the boring 200 pages nothing to do with the avtual plot story. I mean he rushes it as one rushes to get dressed when their girlfriends dad is knocking on the bedroom door. And in book two they do it in almost the exact same way.

I havent read ASH was'nt that book the one where an eight year old girl gets Anally raped? If So YERK

 

[Culhwch]

Well, I finished Lies a couple nights ago, and I must say I did enjoy it quite a lot. A very assured debut from a new author, a quite unlike anything I'd read before. I think it needed a stronger editorial hand, though. Certainly I think fifty to a hundred pages could have been trimmed to make it a little tighter. For instance, one twenty-four page chapter towards the end that dealt with Locke conning his way into a new outfit - while it was important to the plot, it absolutely murdered the momentum that had been building steadily, and I feel i could have been done differently.

And while the book came to a satisfying end, wrapping up almost every loose thread, it made me wonder how on earth Lynch is going to deliver six more books in the cycle. I'd expected the storyline to carry forward into the second book, but obviously it's going to start almost afresh. I just can't see him keeping me coming back that many times if that's going to be the case.

 

[Pyan]

If you don't find Red Seas under Red Skies as good, if not better, Cul, I'll eat my own tentacles.

 

[Culhwch]

If you don't find Red Seas under Red Skies as good, if not better, Cul, I'll eat my own tentacles.

I'll hold you to that. I will certainly be checking it out, even though Lynch left three of my favourite characters behind, and somewhat dead.

 

[bryanspellman]

Just finished up Lies. Loved it. Put it off for awhile as it was getting TOO much praise that I would feel disappointed. I am glad I read it. And cannot wait for the sequel!!!!

 

[Aleksei]

Well the sequel is out, and I finished it today. I liked it better than the first book, though I'm not quite sure why.

 

[HoopyFrood]

I've just started it...only just read the prologue...but damn Scott Lynch certainly knows how to draw you in and make you read on. What's going on? Why are they in that position. What the hell does Jean think he's doing?! And etc. Damn you, Lynch!

 

[shadow9d9]

Too bad he didn't draw in my wife or I... too much describing the ground and little plot did it.. I guess if descriptions of fake worlds draw you in, it's great!

 

[digs]

I thought Ash was fantastic (am I allowed to say that? Maybe I'll stick with I was NOT disappointed with Ash). I enjoyed the whole strange alternate history thing as well as the very realistic portrayal of battle and mercenary life. Ash herself was a well depicted and believable character, with more than her fair share of faults - and all the more likeable because of it. I will agree that it took me a while to get into the book, but I'd heard great things about it, so I persevered, and I'm glad I did.

 

[mogora]

I guess if descriptions of fake worlds draw you in, it's great!

But you like descriptions of fake characters in fake stories?

You obviously don't like worldbuilding, but it just seems a bit strange to complain about 'fake worlds' when all fantasy, and all fiction, is just as 'fake'.

 

[Pyan]

You obviously don't like worldbuilding, but it just seems a bit strange to complain about 'fake worlds' when all fantasy, and all fiction, is just as 'fake'.

Yes, I was wondering about that as well.
Almost by definition, SF/F is set in a different world to this one - it may be the same planet, but to to make it SF/F something has to be changed to make it so, and that something needs to be described and explained.
Now, if I wanted to read something where I was thoroughly familiar with the setting, and it needed no description, surely I'd read a book by Tom Sharpe, Gabriel García Márquez, or Catherine Cookson, rather than a fantasy set in a civilisation that I have no knowledge of whatsoever!

 

[shadow9d9]

But you like descriptions of fake characters in fake stories?

You obviously don't like worldbuilding, but it just seems a bit strange to complain about 'fake worlds' when all fantasy, and all fiction, is just as 'fake'.

Plot is plot.. description of a fake world for no purpose but padding sucks.

 

[mogora]

Plot is plot.. description of a fake world for no purpose but padding sucks.

But to me the detailed descriptions of worldbuilding serve the very grand purpose of allowing me to visualize and enjoy a new and exotic world. Good worldbuilding will bring this new world into existance within my imagination and that, for me, is one of the wonders of SF over other fiction. Of course, everyone has different tastes, and yours are definitely different than mine. However, just repeating 'fake worlds' as your main point of your dislike of worldbuilding doesn't really go a long way of convincing worldbuilding fans why they shouldn't like it.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I just finished a reread of Lies in anticipation of Red Skies over Red Seas and was once again delighted by the way Lynch made the town of Camorr come to life.

 

[anthorn]

They're both good books but they DO NOT deserve all the hype.. the first book was good. i'd give it 9/10 the second 7/10 for the mere fact the ending was rushed.

 

[shadow9d9]

But to me the detailed descriptions of worldbuilding serve the very grand purpose of allowing me to visualize and enjoy a new and exotic world. Good worldbuilding will bring this new world into existance within my imagination and that, for me, is one of the wonders of SF over other fiction. Of course, everyone has different tastes, and yours are definitely different than mine. However, just repeating 'fake worlds' as your main point of your dislike of worldbuilding doesn't really go a long way of convincing worldbuilding fans why they shouldn't like it.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I just finished a reread of Lies in anticipation of Red Skies over Red Seas and was once again delighted by the way Lynch made the town of Camorr come to life.

I use my own imagination to fill in the blanks of the way the walls look or the look of the flooring or trees etc. It takes no skill to make up description of a nonexistant place and I get no enjoyment from reading it. Any description could be subsituted for any other description and the story and characters would be the same. It is padding...

Maybe for people without the capabilities to make up the look of each scene in their mind, it is a blessing... but for them, movies might be more suited.

 

[HoopyFrood]

It takes no skill? Surely it is often easier to look at something that we are familiar with, to look at a tree for example, and describe it, or, as you seem to prefer, to not describe surroundings at all. But to make up entire new worlds, to describe it in such clear detail that the reader has a firm picture of what it looks like, to create new plants, buildings, clothes, money, languages even, now I'd say that takes a lot of effort and certainly a lot of skill to be able to coherently present such entirely new worlds to the reader.

I am not, of course, saying that people whose stories revolve around familiar objects and etc are not as skillful. But I just don't agree that it takes no skill to describe entirely new things.

 

[mogora]

I use my own imagination to fill in the blanks of the way the walls look or the look of the flooring or trees etc.

What if the trees are supposed to look different than we're used to? Perhaps there's a reason why the floor looks like it does and perhaps it's important that you know what the author has imagined instead of what you have.

Any description could be subsituted for any other description and the story and characters would be the same. It is padding...

So there's no difference between, say Naomi Novik's Temeraire books and Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey and Maturin books? Same sort of plot and same sort of characters, but I'd say the background world makes a bit of difference...

And while O'Brian's books may not be SF, the world they are set in are so different to our own that it might as well be utterly alien. I'm glad that O'Brian did his research and fills in the little details that my imagination has no way to correctly conjure since I haven't studied that time period.

Maybe for people without the capabilities to make up the look of each scene in their mind, it is a blessing... but for them, movies might be more suited.

Insulting those who disagree with you does not lend a lot of credence to your argument, IMO.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think you are wrong, shadow9d9. In my experience, the people who have the most imagination and the greatest ability to visualize things are the very ones who take the most delight in a well-written descriptive passage. It seems that they have more of the capacity to appreciate and enjoy these things.

Your feelings about complex worldbuilding and the descriptions of same seem to be similar to my reaction to long, detailed passages of tech-speak. Descriptions of technology and how it works bore me to tears; I don't find them entertaining at all. But I don't regard them as padding. They are there for those who enjoy them and are able to appreciate them; I just don't happen to be one of those people.

I also think you are wrong that readers are eager to hype new authors. As a general rule, they avoid new authors, unless someone else is already hyping them. (Although once the hype begins, there can certainly be a band-wagon effect.)

That said, I, too, was disappointed in Lies. Because of all the praise I had heard -- and the terms in which people where praising it -- I was expecting something extraordinary. For me, the first part of the book delivered on that promise, but as the story went on, I found myself caring less and less whether Locke and his friends succeeded or not, and the setting and the story seemed less and less original. I think if I had read the book without such high expectations, I would have been impressed. With them, the book was something of a let-down. I wish I could have read it under different circumstances.