User login
Poorly received?
Akaia Autumngold — Tue, 08/11/2009 - 16:28
Okay, so the general consensus seems to be that one of the reasons we've been waiting so long for book 3 has been because RSURS wasn't as successful as Lies. This got me wondering - why was it poorly received? I loved book 2, thought it was just as good as Lies - although woefully bereft of Calo, Galdo, and Bug - and could never understand why this was. It had a great plot, vivid new characters and the usual swashbuckling tomfoolery we've all come to expect whenever a Gentleman Bastard is in the room - so what on earth went wrong?
Anyone got any ideas on this?
Re: Poorly received?
toran — Tue, 08/11/2009 - 23:44taken from my post on hallofworlds.net
So, i think nothing particularly went wrong. I feel, for me, that it was the loss of the twins and bug, and the city that first gave me the impression of not being as good. I really enjoyed those characters (yes i feel the city was another character) and i still want to know more about them all, and maybe the novellas will help this need.
"I'm only good at breaking people; I don't put them back together" - Jean Tannen
"Surely you boys can do simple sums, one plus one equals don't fuck with me." - Jean Tannen
Re: Poorly received?
Roland of Gilead — Wed, 08/12/2009 - 15:10I've always maintained that RSURS was a brilliant novel, not a slump from Lynch at all. Yes, it's a different part of the world, and a completely separate type of plot, but that just told me Lynch wasn't going to repeat himself as so many fantasy authors do.
The same convoluted plotting is there, the same great protagonist and his sidekick, wonderfully complex and evil villains, clever set pieces, superb dialogue, exciting action, etc.
Yes, I miss the twins and Bug, too, but they died in the first volume. It happened, it's a fact. Just as Martin kills off good characters, so does Lynch, to heighten suspense and surprise for the reader.
So I definitely expect another great novel with Republic of Thieves, because for me so far, Lynch hasn't lost a beat, which makes this wait all the more excruciating. :geek:
Re: Poorly received?
Sabetha — Thu, 08/13/2009 - 15:06I've given my opinion on RSURS so many times in this forum I can't be bothered to write it again :)
I missed the twins and bug AND camorr too, but I don't think that loss will be so keenly felt in future books - all the odd numbered books, including RoT - as they're all involved in 'flashbacks'.
Re: Poorly received?
GentlemanGajes — Tue, 08/25/2009 - 23:03I think that RSURS was great, it wasn't LOLL, but it was great. I agree that it might have been less then LOLL because it lacks some of the strong points of that book, but I believe Scott Lynch knows this aswell, wich is why RoT is delayed, because he really wants it to be as awesome as LOLL was, with it's great points, to reawaken and increase the hype around the Gentleman Bastard sequence.
- "GAJES!"
Re: Poorly received?
Icarus — Thu, 08/27/2009 - 00:35The flashbacks, and non linear storytelling was one of my favorite parts of LOLL.
The fact that Locke and Jean have fallen so far, and I'm not sure if they have hit bottom yet, is what I imagine the whole sequence is about: Had it good, things went very wrong, we made it out alive and on top!
"As I get older I realize, more and more, that life is way too precious to waste on dignity."
-Jim Butcher
Re: Poorly received?
Sabetha — Thu, 08/27/2009 - 19:00Interesting that this thread should come up now, actually, as Scott has just released an incredibly long excerpt of RSURS with author notes explaining and defending some of the sections that received critical reception.
You can find it here: http://www.scottlynch.us/files/rsurs-sample.rtf
Re: Poorly received?
Roland of Gilead — Thu, 08/27/2009 - 21:20These notes were excellent, both informative and humorous. Lynch entertains me almost as much with these as with his fiction. 8-)
Re: Poorly received?
Sabetha — Fri, 08/28/2009 - 10:39Yeah, I agree! Did you notice the disclaimer?
The RoT excerpt has one too :D
Re: Poorly received?
Roland of Gilead — Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:42Yeah, one of them talks about how it's only YOUR copy that is screwed up, not anybody else's. Hilarious!! :lol: