Scott Lynch’s The Republic of Thieves.. SPOILERS

[BLU-RAY]

Yeah, I don't think Scott has posted here since... IDK, a little bit before or after RSURS came out?

[Rhom]

Yeah, I don't think Scott has posted here since... IDK, a little bit before or after RSURS came out?

Sounds about right. He had that avatar that was the anime drawing of Locke from FF3/6j.

[The hairy bear]

Here's his profile. His last post was November 2007. But that doesn't mean he is not around here lurking. Come out, author! We know you are hearing us!!

[jurble]

I haven't been paying attention to these forums for a few weeks, and this is where I get all my book info, so I hadn't realized this book was out until a few days ago. Read it yesterday and today. It wasn't as good as Lies of Lock Lamora, but it was enjoyable.

Sabetha being Locke's daughter is some amazing mindfucky stuff. I agree that giving Locke an actual magical backstory is kinda lame. So my hope is that Patience just made the story believable enough for Sabetha (the whole tailored to fit thing) - perhaps Sabetha's father was the dude in the portrait, and she doesn't recall what his job was, etc. Maybe the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince her he was a Bondsmage, and boom! mindfuck.

Patience's prophecy about a key, a crown, and a child could also be a part of the mind-fuck game. Locke mentions the prophecy at some point to Sabetha, and she freaks out (being the hypothetical child).

At any rate, I didn't like the walls of text that people spoke in. I only lead Lies once years ago, but I swear the dialogues were shorter.

Finally, the Falconer. What did Patience expect? That he was actually crippled and powerless? Now he's the god damned T-1000. That's pretty clearly the reference Lynch is making right? Dude's gonna be turning his metal hands into knives and shit.

[Iskaral Pust]

I just read it. Disappointing; weak sauce. I would echo all of the criticisms mentioned. The second and third books have scuppered the promise of the first.

The sophomoric love story was particularly bad after Jean's twue wove in RSURS and because L&S exhibited no maturity compared to their teenage back-story. Also, creepy, obsessive, self-flagellating infatuation should be outgrown, not nurtured for years.

I enjoyed TLOLL for refreshing pacing, colorful vignettes to drip back story, wit and a very well imagined and rendered setting. But the constant "colorful" wiseass dialogue has become grating and juvenile, I can no longer suspend disbelief for the cons and manipulations, the plot devices are too repetitive (another forced caper from a puppeteer) and Ocean's 11 is veering into Twilight.

I'm glad that there is a plot vision beyond repeated capers but so far the execution is poor. I cannot imagine reading a fourth installment, never mind sticking through seven or even fourteen.

[Punkhazard]

Patience's prophecy about a key, a crown, and a child could also be a part of the mind-fuck game. Locke mentions the prophecy at some point to Sabetha, and she freaks out (being the hypothetical child).

When did this happen?

[peterbound]

I just read it. Disappointing; weak sauce. I would echo all of the criticisms mentioned. The second and third books have scuppered the promise of the first.

The sophomoric love story was particularly bad after Jean's twue wove in RSURS and because L&S exhibited no maturity compared to their teenage back-story. Also, creepy, obsessive, self-flagellating infatuation should be outgrown, not nurtured for years.

I enjoyed TLOLL for refreshing pacing, colorful vignettes to drip back story, wit and a very well imagined and rendered setting. But the constant "colorful" wiseass dialogue has become grating and juvenile, I can no longer suspend disbelief for the cons and manipulations, the plot devices are too repetitive (another forced caper from a puppeteer) and Ocean's 11 is veering into Twilight.

I'm glad that there is a plot vision beyond repeated capers but so far the execution is poor. I cannot imagine reading a fourth installment, never mind sticking through seven or even fourteen.

Are we just becoming too cynical and bitter to enjoy a good book?

[alguien]

Are we just becoming too cynical and bitter to enjoy a good book?

I sometimes wonder this same thing.

I enjoyed it for what it was. Fun, entertaining, decently written pulp. A more contemporary, snappy take on something like Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

[Werthead]

Also, creepy, obsessive, self-flagellating infatuation should be outgrown, not nurtured for years.

An explanation is provided for this. Whether it's true or not, or if the reader buys it, is another matter, but if so it does explain Locke's issue in a rather (deliberately) creepily disturbing way.

[Merentha]

Also, yes, it should be outgrown. Locke isn't a perfect character and he's kind of better written for that. I'm not sure Locke's obsession with Sabetha was intended to be read as a good thing. Also, as Wert said, there is an explanation.

[Ebenstone]

I preferred the staging of the play and the story of the play to the "A" story. The election story almost felt as if it were just there and was more like a treatment of a bigger story....how many details and plots did they gloss over just to get there. Still, there were some flashes and he really wrote THREE separate pieces of writing here: a political fantasy in the vein of Scandal, an almost YA fantasy that was basically Moulin Rouge and a drama that was a pastiche of Shakespeare.

The portrait confused me. It almost felt like he threw it in there because he wasn't sure how he was going to get Sabetha away from Locke.

I do like how he sort of set up the bigger world conflict and Locke's potential role in it.

That's my nickel.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Are we just becoming too cynical and bitter to enjoy a good book?

The Republic of Thieves was a mess. Really, liking it depends on if you enjoy Lynch's writing and characters because if those aren't enough to make you enjoy the book it won't work for you. Plot wise and thematically it is a mess.

[kuenjato]

Are we just becoming too cynical and bitter to enjoy a good book?

Not when said book is mediocre. I'd agree with almost all Pust wrote, and doubt I'll be spending time with future installments.

[Mad Queen]

I only liked it because my expectations were very low after RSURS. "Are we just becoming too cynical and bitter to enjoy a good book?" No, Iskaral Pust and I enjoyed The Lies of Locke Lamora. I will read future installments, because I know Scott Lynch is talented and can write a good story, even though he hasn't in this case.

[alguien]

Its funny, I don't find Republic of Thieves that much different than Lies of Locke Lamora, in terms of structure, style, and quality of writing.

Tons of flashbacks in both that are sometimes more entertaining than the primary narrative. Unrealistic scams and cons that almost rely on narrative prerogative to succeed. Characters who are preternaturally witty in their responses to one another. The only clear difference I can think of is Lynch's bold (but long-term story-wise, extremely limiting) move to kill off half Locke's crew in the first book. This raising of the stakes is never again really matched in the next two. In place of that in book 3, however, we finally meet Sabetha, learn about the bondsmagi, learn a new mystery about Locke, and see a return of a hated villain. Again, not as high stakes as book one, but a satisfying exchange. Both are good reads for me.

The other things that I think have changed are that expectations for Lynch are different and the novelty of the first book has worn off.

[Argonath Diver]

I mentioned a month or so ago how much I was struggling to even finish the book, despite considering the first novel one of my favorites to recommend to friends getting into modern fantasy.

With apologies to Mr. Lynch, whom I have a great deal of respect for through both his works and open fight against illness. We know he worked so hard on this novel - yet I simply loathed it. The two plots were equally uninteresting. I was hoping to cling on to my love of Chains, the Gallos, and Jean, and enjoy the flashback sequences, but other than a few of the more light-hearted sequences, I struggled to finish each chapter. The Karthain plotline was more interesting, if only a little. I really latched onto the few parts that featured intrigue regarding the Eldren magics and creations.

I think, in the end, I am worried I'm just not the target audience that Lynch is writing for. I will purchase the next novels, but I cannot think of a time I will ever re-open this e-book the way I have re-read the first novel multiple times (and I think 3 for Red Seas). As Jerol mentioned, I hope it's a swing novel, bringing us into a story arc that doesn't feel as goofy (the entire RoT play portion) or uninteresting (voting intrigue). I don't know if it was more difficult to read about Locke's unhealthy obsession with Sabetha, or him being beaten or tortured again and again. The RoT Shakespeare riff was probably meant to balance out the heavy parts, but I had an even harder time getting into a play-within-a-flashback-within-a-novel.

I would absolutely devour a series of short stories of the Bastards' more minor exploits, both failures and successes. Apologies for the longwinded complaint; I truly thought this would be one of my favorite novels of the year.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Its funny, I don't find Republic of Thieves that much different than Lies of Locke Lamora, in terms of structure, style, and quality of writing.

Tons of flashbacks in both that are sometimes more entertaining than the primary narrative. Unrealistic scams and cons that almost rely on narrative prerogative to succeed. Characters who are preternaturally witty in their responses to one another. The only clear difference I can think of is Lynch's bold (but long-term story-wise, extremely limiting) move to kill off half Locke's crew in the first book. This raising of the stakes is never again really matched in the next two. In place of that in book 3, however, we finally meet Sabetha, learn about the bondsmagi, learn a new mystery about Locke, and see a return of a hated villain. Again, not as high stakes as book one, but a satisfying exchange. Both are good reads for me.

The other things that I think have changed are that expectations for Lynch are different and the novelty of the first book has worn off.

There are differences. TROT gives basically equal time to the flashbacks and the present day story. In LoLL the interludes are normally much shorter than the regular chapters. In LoLL the interludes are important because they help set up Camorra, The Gentleman Bastards, Barsa, and the cosmology of the world. Basically everything we learn in the interludes is important to the story being told in the present. We find out the personalities of characters and most of those characters are important to the present day plotline. We find out about the secret peace, about the bastard's lair, about Chains's teaching methods, about Jean's weapons training etc etc in the flashbacks. This stuff matters a lot to the main narrative of the book. In TROT the plot lines have nothing to do with one another except for the introduction of Sabetha and frankly she needed no introduced. An extra page or two of dialogue between Locke and Jean and/or Locke and Sabetha could have easily conveyed every relevant piece of information we learned in the flashbacks (honestly you don't actually need anything from the flashbacks). So right there you could have taken out half the book without losing anything important.

The election plotline is terrible. No tension at all. Its established from the outset that there are no stakes, as long as our heroes try hard there will be no consequences to them win or lose. For the Bondsmagi its just a matter of prestige, just their version of the superbowl. In LoLL we have 60% of the gang getting killed and the villain trying to murder the entire nobility of Camorra--men, women, and children. Stakes matter, there a big part of what makes us care about the events happening on the page.

[The hairy bear]

I agree that the main flaw of the story is the lack of stakes. Also, giving equal to the present and the past storyline was probably a mistake. And I missed an ellaborate con.

But I found the dialogue, tone and characteritzation great as usual. I enjoy Locke being stubborn and inmature, and how unhealthy his love for Sabetha is. For this reason, I'm still eager for the next book. Lynch may have erred in designing the structure of one of the novels of is saga, but the writing skills are still there and the next books still have huge potential.

[Howdyphillip]

I just wanted to leave one more comment here about how much I absolutely adored this book. There is just so much negative criticism here that I think that it is almost unfair to not share that once again for the benefit of someone coming here trying to decide to read it or not. It has been a couple of months now since I have finished, and the story still dances through my head.

[alguien]

There are differences. TROT gives basically equal time to the flashbacks and the present day story. In LoLL the interludes are normally much shorter than the regular chapters. In LoLL the interludes are important because they help set up Camorra, The Gentleman Bastards, Barsa, and the cosmology of the world. Basically everything we learn in the interludes is important to the story being told in the present. We find out the personalities of characters and most of those characters are important to the present day plotline. We find out about the secret peace, about the bastard's lair, about Chains's teaching methods, about Jean's weapons training etc etc in the flashbacks. This stuff matters a lot to the main narrative of the book. In TROT the plot lines have nothing to do with one another except for the introduction of Sabetha and frankly she needed no introduced. An extra page or two of dialogue between Locke and Jean and/or Locke and Sabetha could have easily conveyed every relevant piece of information we learned in the flashbacks (honestly you don't actually need anything from the flashbacks). So right there you could have taken out half the book without losing anything important.

The election plotline is terrible. No tension at all. Its established from the outset that there are no stakes, as long as our heroes try hard there will be no consequences to them win or lose. For the Bondsmagi its just a matter of prestige, just their version of the superbowl. In LoLL we have 60% of the gang getting killed and the villain trying to murder the entire nobility of Camorra--men, women, and children. Stakes matter, there a big part of what makes us care about the events happening on the page.

I didn't think the election plotline was terrible, per se. It was just more light fun rather than thrilling. A low-stakes convenient way of healing Locke and reintroducing Sabetha.

I am glad they didn't do away with the flashbacks for an instant or two of additional dialog. I really liked the play and all the intrigue that went into it. Were they strictly necessary to the plot? Well, no, if you think the main plot was the elections... but that's a faulty assumption right there.