Re: Hugo Shortlist 2008

On Mar 22, 1:07=A0pm, Rich Horton <rrhor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:58:08 -0700, David T. Bilek
>
> <davidbi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Speaking mostly about his first book, _The Lies of Locke Lamora_, I
> >think he successfully combines a kind of sly humor like WJW's
> >Maijstral books with a much more realistic sense of the harsh, often
> >brutal reality of being a criminal. =A0A witty, charming criminal with
> >panache, sure, but panache doesn't stop crossbow bolts or protect your
> >friends when people come looking for you.
>
> >I thought LLL was clever, exciting, and that Lynch is almost as good a
> >writer as he thinks he is. =A0And as Andrew Plotkin said, he clearly
> >thinks he's a pretty damn good writer.
>
> >The only people I wouldn't suggest it to are those looking for Gene
> >Wolfe or M. John Harrison or that sort of prose driven literary style
> >of novel.
>
> Except I have only read the second novel, and while it's not bad
> exactly ... it's not all that great either.

No, just decent.  Abercrombie is the superior novelist.  The dialogue
of Lynch is good, but he is hopeless at putting a novel together as
far as pace etc., goes.  500 page caper books and can't get that
right?  Bizarre. I dunno if that is editors or publishers who want
something more like an epic fantasy than Brustian panache.

While the second has the whole excruciatingly long moon-eyed doomed
pirate romance bit where pretty much nothing happens (and the outcome
is exactly as you would expect), and then as such rushes the
interesting end to finish in 8 pages or so it seemed, the first had a
keep the eyelids open with matchsticks opening 70 pages about how he
was a different kid who kept getting into trouble, repeat, multiple
times.  If you have to read the first one, and have read the second,
just skip the first 20%.