Outside of a Dog: Lynch, Scott: (01) Lies of Locke Lamora, The (re-read)

Shewood

Shewood wrote on August 20, 2006 at 11:04 PM:

Lies reminds me more of Rabelais and Brust of Dumas, though there's some overlap.

Henry Farrell

Henry Farrell wrote on August 21, 2006 at 10:12 AM:

I'm about 2/3rds of the way through the Lynch book, and I don't really think that it stands up to a comparison with Brust. The former is considerably less witty (which is fair enough perhaps, given that Lynch is less experienced as a writer), but also a little shallow and self-satisfied. But perhaps that's just me.

Kate

Kate wrote on August 21, 2006 at 10:19 AM:

Sherwood: my knowledge of Dumas is limited to reading _The Three Muskeeters_ and saying, "You know, I like Paarfi better," so I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Henry Farrell: I'm not sure if that's just a style critique or not. I don't have the best ear for style, but if it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you.

Have you read _Dzur_ yet?

James Nicoll

James Nicoll wrote on August 21, 2006 at 10:42 PM:

I wouldn't have thought to compare it to Brust because I wasn't vaguely dissatisfied by the end of it. I think Brust is technically superior but I enjoyed the Lynch more than recent Vlad offerings.

Andrew Plotkin

Andrew Plotkin wrote on August 23, 2006 at 12:34 PM:

This is not a complete answer but it's what came to mind instantly: Lynch's book did not bring Brust to mind, because Lynch wrote a Team Book. It's all about the team; it switches viewpoints between them. The team is the great joy of the book. (It gains impact thereby when SPOILER.)

Brust doesn't write about a team. He writes about Vlad. Vlad has allies and friends, but they aren't his team. (Loiosh is a sidekick, which is different.)

This is overwhelming enough a difference that it obviates any comparison, in my mind.

David Tate

David Tate wrote on August 23, 2006 at 3:59 PM:

Andrew: That's a very interesting observation, and I think I see how it works at the extremes, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding the bright line. Would you consider Westlake's 'Dortmunder' stories to be about Dortmunder (and his allies and colleagues), or about Dortmunder's Team? Or neither?