Sometimes, I think I’m the easiest audience in the world. (The easiest mark? Okay, probably not that, at least.) Which is not to imply that The Republic of Thieves was less than good. It’s just that if I’m not stumbling over myself to spout reason after reason why it was great, it may be that my desire to claim it is great, by simple fiat, may not be entirely fair of me.

I mean, yes, I love the characters, and that could be the root of it. “I care about these characters beyond all reason”, while also an exaggeration, still fits the bill for an express train to Loss of Objectivity Township[1]. And yes, the book gave me everything I could have wanted out of this particular sequel: the long-referenced Sabetha not only finally given life, but given life and strength of character[2] well above and beyond the pale, purposed only for a string of villains to gain leverage over Locke Lamora, farcical reflection of an actual person that she could have become in the hands of, say, a comic book author; more information abut the Bondsmagi of Karthain, which I certainly craved; a new kind of con game for the Gentlemen Bastards to run; and especially the lack of a cliffhanger ending.

And on top of that, there were lots of little things I didn’t precisely know I’d wanted, but got anyway. Like enough information about the Eldren, however minimal, for me to believe they’ll be relevant before the series ends. (Which is cool, because ancient traces of civilization are inherently cool, and moreso if they eventually matter as more than set dressing.) And like the sense of a circle closing with these three books forming a trilogy within the larger sequence. And like the clinched certainty after said three books that if there’s one thing I can rely on in Lynch’s writing, it’s that whatever the characters and the reader think the game is, it’s always going to be something else[3]. And like that bitch of an after-the-credits scene. Because seriously, twelve pages of me shaking my head in less-than-mute denial over what I know in my bones is about to happen? Somewhere along the way, someone told a pretty good story if I care that much about, y’know, these characters.

It occurs to me that the structure of this review indicates a paragraph where I allowed for the book’s shortcomings, as a contrast to what had come before and fulfillment of my original desire to not falsely claim greatness. But over the course of putting this together, I’ve found that whatever flaws certainly did exist? I don’t care enough about them to dredge any up. So, there you go, I guess.

Also, there’s a fairly significant spoiler behind the cut.

[1] It’s a real place. In Montana. Look it up.
[2] In both the literary and… well, moral doesn’t seem to be the right term here, does it? So what I really meant for the second half was strength of personality, and now it’s not a clever, dual-purpose metaphor any longer. Luckily, nobody reads footnotes.
[3] If any of the characters actually learns that, in a meaningful way and where they can use the knowledge? It could be that they’ll finally win that big score they keep working toward. (Whether said score is physical or emotional in nature is left as an exercise for the author.)

Continue reading →

Before I consider further my feelings upon my reread of Red Seas under Red Skies, first, an excerpt from my original review, in May of 2008: “[T]he third book […] is due out in January. I am now sad.” So, yeah, that estimate was off by nearly five years. Whee! (True story: I have indeed remained sad over that period of time.)

The downside of such a long gap is that my overflowing excitement for the series has definitely died back a little. It’s hard to unreservedly recommend a series, or maintain a high level of excitement, after a surprise six year absence. The upside of the delay is that I “had” to read the books again, and they really are so good. By and large, I stand by my assessment after all. These really are the most fun pair of books I’ve read. They may fall apart soon after (I really hope not and will find out by sometime in Februaryish), they may not be the strongest on the literary scale or the political scale or the sweeping history of humanity scale, but they are hilarious and heart-breaking and absolutely clever as can be, and I’m glad a third one came out, five years late or not.

As for the specific book? I am struck more and more by the religion. A secret 13th god, watching over thieves and pirates, who most people consider to be a heresy? Okay, that’s not the part I’m struck by, that’s just cool. What I’m struck by is how religious Locke is. Sure, he loses his path sometimes, and he questions, but he’s sincere in his beliefs and in his unwillingness to trample anyone else’s in pursuit of his goals. He’s an absolutely good man, which is an odd thing to say of a thief and murderer. Part of it is that it’s a dark world, and basically everyone is a thief and murderer (legitimized, perhaps, but nonetheless) or else a victim. Makes it a lot easier to judge a man by the content of his character without getting all wrapped up in his pesky actions. Another part of it is that the Bondsmagi of Karthain are just so horrible of a shadow across, well, everyone, that it would be pretty much impossible to look bad by comparison.

The next thing, being massively spoilery, is behind the cut. But it’s just speculation chatter, so if you haven’t read the book, there’s nothing else down there to miss. Also: you should read the book. …after you read the first book, of course.

Continue reading →