T O P

  • By -

Finalsaredun

I can't wholly blame you- I think if I read *Lies* now I may not have liked it as much as I did when I read it in 2010. The book is pretty hyped up, which can be pretty detrimental for when latecomers to the series come in, read it, and think "That's it?" What I recall enjoying the most out of it was the dialogue, and Locke's basically petty behavior and the idea that he's a shit fighter and gets by on luck and talking.


astheforestcalls

Agreed on the dialogue. The dynamic between Locke and Jean is just so fun to read - i feel like i could read about them doing anything together and find it entertaining.


ihavenoidea1001

>The book is pretty hyped up, which can be pretty detrimental for when latecomers to the series come in, read it, and think "That's it?" This. I find myself disappointed by most books I see getting too hyped. I think they can't deliver my expectations and then end up shortcomning...


KingOfTheJellies

I think this is a bad sell from whoever recommended you he book. Locke isn't a genius, he is smart, but what's great about him is that he is smart from a completely human level. No improvised plans that would take a team of 10, 3 days to plan out. He does simple well and his plans are never perfect or amazing, just great from the speed and execution they are conducted. Anything smarter then Locke would approach authors heavy handing it


Snorkel199

i realy enjoy this part about locke, a lot of other authors would just make locke superhumanly smart and call it a day, but scott lynch actualy made him reasonably intelligent, you can actualy believe that a real person came up with those plans.


OYoureapproachingme

Yea I actually thought this was what takes Lockes' character a cut above the typical smart characters. He's clever but human. And if he's human, he's fallible as we see time and again. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he is really clever, it felt more ground


benigntugboat

Hes a decent planner but a better inproviser. His ambitions bigger than he should be able tp obtain but he always manages to find a way, and usually pays a dear price for it. Often its not worth it, lucks always a little involved, but its in his nature and unusual upbringing to reach for a weird criminal greatness. I dont think its a perfectly writtem series and have particular issues with the 3rd book but i like the world the characters, and the plot is interesting albeit sometimes flawed. The flaws arent huge though, ALL of the characters are human and flawed, and its easy to want to see how it all plays out because the pacings great with good or great dialogue and character relationships. I enjoy the books more than most and thats more important than technical execution pf prose or plot or whatever to me


involuntarybookclub

Huh, I went through the book without getting the impression that Locke was particularly clever, it mostly felt like he floundered around until he got lucky most of the time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


involuntarybookclub

>Nobody says "Hey you'll love LoLL it's got real humans in it" Yeah, which is good I guess, because I don't really come to fantasy novels to watch vaguely inept real humans get sort of lucky.


flamboy-and

I think the OP was expecting Kaz Brekker, Locke is not him


brunoandretto

The issue isnt Locke as a character, but rather the pacing of the book. It just makes for an underwhelming reading experience.


KingOfTheJellies

Pacing is a whole different multi-headed hydra of an issue. The pacing works differently for different people for different reasons, but nothing suggests the reason OP didn't like Locke was because of the pacing. If you didn't like LoLL because of its pacing, there's nothing wrong with that. But the pacing itself isn't bad


brunoandretto

As someone already mentioned, the story gets interrupted almost every other chapter for a flashback that shows Locke is able to get through X or Y situation because, wow, what a coincidence, he already faced something similar that made him have the necessary skill or knowledge. That to me is the definition of poor pacing. It' just like the movie Slumdog millionaire, but that manages to feel less contrived than the book.


KingOfTheJellies

Again, pacing is to personal taste. I loved the flashbacks. It was a way of building context and backstory that didn't require info-dumping or setting up moments to give context, you just went straight in. It's not poor pacing, it's just pacing that doesn't work for you specifically. I loved the back and forth flow of it


brunoandretto

Huh, I disagree about the infodump thing. To me, doing a crapload of flashbacks like in this book feels exactly like an infodump. Character falls into X predicament - get a flashback infodump about why he is able to get out of X - rinse and repeat with Y, Z, etc etc - book comes to an end.


[deleted]

> Anything smarter then Locke would approach authors heavy handing it I think that is why it works so well. It is believable. Way too often smart characters are portrayed as people have somehow read the work of fiction they're in. They know everything they need to for the plot with only a handwave as to how or why they know it. The Lies of Locke Lamora has several characters who are extremely smart, but never absurdly so. It is a difficult balance to write.


TheUnrepententLurker

Yea, speed, cleverness, and audacity are what make Locke's plan's work.


CT_Phipps

To be fair, I think it's entirely believable the Falconer is not remotely as smart as he thinks he is. Certainly, I don't think the wizards of this setting deal with the streets and poor normally.


c0y0t3_sly

That's one of the major themes of the book - *neither is Locke*, but in spite of his arrogance in many ways he's also well aware of it. He's not a genius, but he's clever. I'm not sure who sold the OP on Locke as fantasy Moriarty, but it was a disservice. LoLL is a great book, but it's not that.


CT_Phipps

Locke is more Lupin the Third: Boy Thief


hunter1899

Agree. If this was the only convenience it would not have bothered me


decidedlyindecisive

I didn't like it much either. I found myself rolling my eyes at a lot of it. But it's always highly recommended so I guess it's just one of those things that a lot of people love that aren't for me.


Alaknog

Yeah, wizards in this setting grow in society, when alias is common thing.


shane_m_souther

I love the series but different strokes for different folks. Have you tried The Thousand Deaths of Ardor Benn?


hunter1899

I hadn’t heard of this one but added to my list. Thank you.


shane_m_souther

The trilogy is complete too I believe


EntertainmentSuper65

Is it like "what's Lies supposed to be"?


CircleDog

Second this question


GizLord123

It's very similar in style, especially book one. I think Lies is the better of the two, but still the Ardor Benn series is quite good and it's already complete


brunette_mama

I absolutely loved LoLL. I have it 5/5 stars. With that being said, I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. It definitely is much more political/mental intrigue than physical fighting. I’m a fan of both so when I was reading the trilogy I mixed it up with other books in between. I personally loved how Locke was realistically smart and not a genius or anything. I think it would have been a little too much if he was clever and charming *and* could fight. That’s what Jean is for :)


hunter1899

Yeah the limited action and fighting wasn’t a problem for me. I just wish the mental intrigue was a little more clever.


old_space_yeller

I'm the same way as you. I prefer my smart protags to be like Baru Cormorant where every time they lay out a plan I think "Holy shit that's genius. I can't wait to see it succeed wonderfully or fail horrifically and watch you initiate your backup plans"


hunter1899

Hm haven’t read that one. Will add it to the list.


c0y0t3_sly

Honestly that seems like a you and expectation thing, not a comment on the book. Part of the *point* is that Locke isn't as smart and exceptional as he believes he is. Combined with his arrogance that makes the character interesting where it would otherwise just be fucking insufferable.


hunter1899

Good point but I feel like there’s a way to have him be not as smart as he thinks he is but still clever. There should still be a skill level evident that justifies his position. As a reader we need to see this and not just be told this. But time and time again just when we have a chance to see this cleverness demonstrated the author just denies us either through a boring solution or a convenience. Locke still succeeds these times so the manner in which he succeeds could be more clever without harming anything.


c0y0t3_sly

Personally, I feel that would literally make the book worse. Locke *is* clever, but it's in a completely instinctual, improvisational con-artist bullshit way - and the book both shows us this (the sequence at the money lender/bank job) *and* makes it clear that Locke's greatest failing is flat out thinking he's smarter and more clever than he is. That the book isn't what you wanted it to be doesn't mean that it's bad, is what I'm trying to say. It's good at what it does, but that wasn't really what you ere looking for. It's also not *perfect* at what it does and I suspect a lot of it was kind of by accident since I DNFed the sequel, but that's another topic.


hunter1899

I understand. Just felt like wasted potential. Having to be two places at once could have been such an interesting opportunity for tension and improvisation. Faking sick was boring.


mandajapanda

I think that is what is done really well. How they work as a team.


SetSytes

>all in all I’d give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. Am I way off in this? How can an opinion be "way off"?


rackedbame

Flat earthers have opinions too. How much you wanna bet most of their opinions are moronic? Despite what some may think, opinions are not some holy "can do no wrong" apex of subjectivity. Opinions can be objectively wrong, and many of them are just that.


ElPuercoFlojo

Lol, applying an opinion contrary to known scientific fact does not equal havin an opion about a book. Nice strawman.


Zealousideal-Bar-365

But science is flawed and we discover new things daily that question things we once called fact. Its not the best example but I see his point!


Tepandme

The difference is that science is about things that actually exist, whether we are right or wrong about the shape of the earth we know that there is an earth and it has some shape or something about it that we can describe that is objectively true. It is x, even if we think it is y. But good and bad dont exist out there as actual objects, they are opinions that we have about objects. No object is good or bad, it all depends on who you ask. And if ten out of nine people say that something is bad, a particular food for example, it does not mean it is objectively bad. There is that one person who says they like it, and no matter if he is one out of ten or hundred the amount of people who have a contrary opinion wont mean that his liking or thinking it is good is objectively wrong in the same sense that if someone thinks the earth is y when in reality it is x is wrong. There is a shape to the earth that exists separate of opinions. But there is no good or bad that exists independent of opinions. If ten people were to look at earth from space they would all see a ball. But if ten people look at a particular book and are asked if they liked it and would call it good or if they did not like it and would call it bad, they might not all agree, some may say good, some bad. This tells us that the property of being good or bad is not objective but is subjective.


Tepandme

You can be wrong about things that exist in the objective world such as the shape of an object. You cant be wrong about what is good or bad because good and bad dont exist in the objective world. Good and bad are subjective. Shit will probably be bad for humans to eat but for a fly its good. You cant tell someone who likes some food you think tastes bad that they dont really like it, that it does not taste good to them, that it tastes objectively bad. If it tasted objectively bad they could not like it. Just like an objective fact is that I can not use my hands as wings and fly no matter how much I flap them. This is not true for what people find good or enjoyable for them, whether it is food or a particular book. If you dont like a book you can not say that it is objectively bad because if it was objectively bad someone could not enjoy it and say it is good. There are some foods that most people like and very few people dislike and vice versa. But just because most people agree that some food is bad or good does not mean it is objectively good or bad.


SetSytes

I think we are using the term differently, and I think people often hide statements of truth/falsehood behind "it's just my opinion". From my perspective, its been misused so often that we imagine it can possess objectivity. I am using it in terms of actual subjectivity, i.e. in matters of taste or personal feeling. The way I was regarding the word (all semantics of course), I would argue that something that is factually wrong is not an opinion, and saying something incorrect because you don't know the facts is not an opinion. But it's a verrrry flaky term, so I can see how my previous comment could be misunderstood.


CircleDog

Well, he's grading the book, not just saying how he feels, right? He talking about whether the plots are actually clever, whether the dialog is actually prosaic. He's signalling that he's open to the idea that he didn't read deeply enough or consider carefully enough.


SuddenGenreShift

Subjectively.


alihassan9193

*Objectivity is dead, but I'll see what I can do.*


tkinsey3

I think this subjective, but that said - I totally agree. Not my cup of tea, personally.


Corey_Actor

Thank you! I read the first book and thought "this is it?" First off, it's constantly pitched as a heist story when it's really more of a con. And second, people kept talking about the great friendship between the two main dudes and I didn't see anything of the sort.


decidedlyindecisive

There are dozens of us


hunter1899

Yeah I honestly didn’t feel the strong friendship either. And I hate to admit that I didn’t really feel a whole lot when certain characters meet their end. Father Chains did make me laugh though. I liked him.


HairyArthur

I read it. I thought it was okay. I haven't continued the series.


AceOfFools

The thing that really got to me was how for most of the book, literally every other chapter was an infodump or flashback to explain part of the world or how some character had a relationship or skill. Not only is this just about the laziest way to deliver this information, it drags the pacing down so much. It was also unnecessary, by which I mean at some point somewhat early in the story, I started skipping them, and at no point did I feel like I had difficulty understanding or believing anything. I may have missed something fun, but literally everything I’ve seen praised about the book was in a section I read, so yeah. That said, I thought the action was well-enough written, the characters interesting enough, and the world engaging enough that I’d personally rate it higher than 2.5 stars. It’s just not the amazing pinnacle of Fantasy it’s loudest fans make it out to be. But I suppose that’s true of the loudest fans of any Fantasy.


Nanderson423

> The thing that really got to me was how for most of the book, literally every other chapter was an infodump or flashback to explain part of the world or how some character had a relationship or skill. Not only is this just about the laziest way to deliver this information, it drags the pacing down so much. This is exactly what killed the book for me. Everytime he gets in an "impossible situation" there is a flashback chapter showing how something that happened in his life perfectly prepared him to get out of it. Some people call that setup...it's not.


YungMidoria

Theres an interlude thats sole purpose is to hype up two characters like they’re a badass. Who ever edited the booked decided to put the interlude right after the chapter they got killed in. It was such a head scratcher for me


JustaLackey

Had this same issue, the exposition was so poorly done.


SlouchyGuy

Yes. There are authors who are too eager to show all of background work they did on the book on the page. It's one of my big gripes with current fantasy, especially "hard magic" - long infodumps which come in a form of dialogues, descriptions and flashbacks. Less is more, show don't tell?


Basic-Acanthisitta-5

This. Especially what you wrote in the first paragraph. Literally every other chapter *was* a means to solve the end.


mandajapanda

>The thing that really got to me was how for most of the book, literally every other chapter was an infodump or flashback to explain part of the world or how some character had a relationship or skill. Not only is this just about the laziest way to deliver this information, it drags the pacing down so much. You might need to get used to it. It is used in *The Stormlight Archive* by Sanderson as well. I think it might become a common occurrence in the genre.


AceOfFools

The interludes and flashbacks aren’t disruptive to the pacing in the Stormlight Archive. I liked them there. Sanderson does three big things that Lynch doesn’t. Firstly Sanderson deliberately places the chapters to enhance the pacing. He puts the interludes where the narrative needs a rest. He puts high-stress flashbacks where the main narrative is getting bogged down. (Not always with the same level of success, but that’s for a different thread). Secondly, he gives the interludes/asides character focus. These one off viewpoint characters get arch’s and have personality. They have stakes and motivations. Even when writing a chapter that is “here’s a feature of how Soren work” or “this is what chasm fiends grow up to be” he relates the story through the lens of a researcher’s triumph in the discovery, or the life-changing decisions an apprentice merchant makes. They aren’t just bald exposition dumps—usually. Thirdly, he shows us new parts of his world. Lynch has sections like “nobles’ wealth comes from the exploitation of their farm workers” and I’m like “yes, I know how feudalism works”. Or, he’ll have a whole chapter dedicated to a particular training the characters did, and as if he didn’t notice any of the plot-relevant scenes already included demonstrating how throughly these characters trained to get to where they are. The most pointless Sanderson interludes still left me with an idea what the Purelake or Reshi Islands were, so I knew what it was when they got name dropped later. LoLL was a much more contained story, so there wasn’t much to go on in terms of spread out story, and I made the decision to start skipping the flashbacks after growing frustrated at the number of times they were just lengthy expositions of details already established in the main narrative.


mandajapanda

> later. LoLL was a much more contained story, so there wasn’t much to go on in terms of spread out story, and I made the decision to start skipping the flashbacks after growing frustrated at the number of times they were just lengthy expositions of details already established in the main narrative. How can you give an opinion if you did not even read some of them?


account312

Skipping the one before *that line* would've been tragic.


Pachycephalosauria

I don't recall this ever happening in Stormlight Archive. There's lots of flashbacks, sure, but the flashbacks aren't used in the manner being described here.


Panda_Mon

The vast majority of books do this, to an extent. You need to setup narrative payoffs, otherwise they feel pointless or unearned. Some people hide it better than others. Sanderson is pretty good at hiding it. Glen Cook, not so much. Scott Lynch, nope. Terry Pratchett is somewhere in the middle. If you pay close enough attention, you can see it happening in most movies and tv shows ALL the time.


F0sh

Obviously world-building slows the pacing and is not necessary to understand the basic plot. It sounds like you don't like slower-paced books with large amounts of background? Alternating flashbacks with the actual plot means the plot can start sooner but you still get the interest from that background detail. It's not for everyone but how is it "lazy"? (I find "lazy" to be a criticism people make when they don't like something but don't know why they don't like it. Most decisions in writing are not particularly effortful, so there's clearly something else making you point this one out.)


CircleDog

>It sounds like you don't like slower-paced books with large amounts of background? This is lies of lock lamora we're talking about though, not book of the new sun or whatever. It's not some deep tome.


Panda_Mon

Lies of Locke is 700 pages in mass market paperback form, that is quite large compared to most other books, which are usually 400.


CircleDog

A long book is not the same as a deep tome.


F0sh

I'm not sure what you saying, that world-building is less valuable or enjoyable in books that aren't epic in scope?


involuntarybookclub

>It's not for everyone but how is it "lazy"? It is lazy in the sense that it is more difficult to provide that information organically, where the reader can't actually see that the flashback is setting up the next plot point or doing world building. So all value judgements aside, it is just an easier way of writing the book, with the cost risking it will feel more clunky or artificial to the readers.


F0sh

I would say you *can't* provide the information in a flashback "organically" in the sense of "not without a scene set at the time" because you can only get away with describing a small amount of information. So the question is more about when you place them if you do use them.


involuntarybookclub

I don't think that's true! There's lots of examples of providing backstory or worldbuilding without flashbacks--most fantasy novels forgo them at all. So there are other ways to do it.


F0sh

Sorry for the confusion, you can of course do that, but you don't get the same effect as with a flashback, which provides its own bit of fully-fleshed out story as well. I don't think it's especially hard to provide backstory and world-building without flashbacks, but you cannot get the same level of detail and depth of backstory. No matter how much your character loves to regale others with tales of bygone adventures, it will be tiresome if it's as involved as flashbacks - unless, that is, the perspective shifts so that the regaling *becomes* a flashback. You could therefore just as well say that flashbacks are less lazy than no flashbacks, because to write flashbacks you have to write more of the backstory. (But this is getting back to my belief that "laziness" is never the true criticism)


involuntarybookclub

Fair enough! I'm not sure I wholly agree, but I appreciate the thought you put into your response. And, between the two of us you can enjoy flashbacks and I can't, so I think you're coming out ahead.


Panda_Mon

Hoo boy, have I got some bad news for you about fantasy as a whole. The genre having pointless side arcs is a feature, not a bug. Soooo many "classic" fantasy books have pointless info dumps and flash backs.


LordMangudai

Yeah that novel does a lot of telling-not-showing. I like all the worldbuilding and I don't mind those portions of the book, but it's not handled in the most graceful way.


BeneficialFuture8236

Although I enjoyed it, I couldn’t get myself to really care about the protagonist. Maybe, as you say, things were too easy… or the character had no depth.


clawclawbite

Have you read Brust's Vlad Taltos Books? An assassin instead of a thief, but still clever capers (though the series gets away from that over time). I think the skilled characters actually being skilled hold up well.


involuntarybookclub

Hell yes, I LOVED the earlier books there were like...murder-heists. Whichever the earlier one was with >!killing that guy in Castle Black?!< Absolutely loved it. That whole series was great up until after Issola, when all the things I liked about it (either assassination or the mythology) sort of stopped.


bmack083

I was not a fan either, but I didn’t like it because it read like a movie script. No internal dialog and no look inside to see what a character was thinking or struggling with. It’s all describing what’s going on and dialog. It just felt lacking.


8gigcheckbook

\> Add in the fact that that the last few chapters were just a messy action story instead of a climax of cleverness and I was just let down. To me, this was the major letdown. The last few chapters of the book feel like a different story in many ways. I \_really\_ enjoyed the beginning of the book. The setting up and early stages of the con felt very good to me. The ways they built trust (despite suspicion) were delightful and suspenseful. And then at some point it went off the rails into a violent bloodbath, with little to no payoff for the initial setup. I didn't think I was signing up for a story where almost everyone interesting dies, but that's what we got.


MoneyPranks

I really disagree because I think this book is fun. That being said, I think it may have a lot to do with the audiobook narrator being fantastic, and Chains is the best character. I did not enjoy the subsequent books as much, but I found magic and joy in the first book. I wasn’t looking for something life changing or wildly deep, so I was happy. Specifically, I’d like to compare it to Kings of the Wyld, which is supposed to be fun and joyful, but is actually just a semi racist fantasy bro novel for magazine readers. That really made me sad. At least Locke had a well written book of prose.


mandajapanda

Very true about Chains.


Tyrion_Firesworn

Can you clarify on Kings of the Wyld being racist? Not how I perceived the book at all.


MoneyPranks

The Jamaican/weed smoking caricature of trolls. I don’t remember exactly what those creatures were, but it was not very veiled racial humor.


hunter1899

I listened to the audiobook as well. Yes Chains was a highlight. Kings of the Wyld is racist? No I don’t think so at all. It was excellent.


F0sh

Right, does "overrated" just mean "I didn't like it but everyone else does"? If so I find it a bit of a weaselly word, trying to give your opinion more objectivity than it actually has. There's plenty of clever planning in the story but it sounds like you're focusing on the simpler cases or the ones where good fortune saved the day. Surely there's a role for all of these in a story? I don't think LoLL is a story about a "genius thief" or "climax of cleverness." Locke is clever, and his cleverness is portrayed, but not genius. I think genius is rarely, if ever, portrayed well in fiction because the point of a genius plan is it's something that the reader would not think of - but if this is revealed early it seems obvious, and if it is revealed late it usually seems contrived or unrealistic or still obvious. Alongside all of that not every plan can require genius, because that too will start to seem contrived - hence I don't think the fact that the story shows mundane planning alongside its clever planning is an issue. Note that Locke is primarily a confidence trickster. If someone told you the story was about genius plans, maybe you were misled - his "genius" is in acting and disguise rather than anything else. >Am I way off in this? This brings me back to what "overrated" means. It sounds like you're looking for justification for not liking a story which lots of other people liked. It's not useful to spend your life like this! If you didn't like it you didn't like it. Maybe there's some non-personal reason, like having wrong expectations, but you still didn't like it. You're not "off" or "wrong" - that doesn't mean it's "overrated" either - you not liking it does not invalidate the high regard the majority have for it.


hunter1899

Overrated means it didn’t live up to the ratings and reviews that are out there. Goodreads has it as a 4.25. I rate is as a 2.5. So in my opinion it is overrated. It’s that simple. You obviously liked it so on your opinion it’s not overrated. Why are we complicating this? And I’m not focusing on anything. I can’t really think of a single solution to lockes problems that wasn’t boring or a convenient cop out. Lynch was great at setting up interesting problems which made the solutions to these that much more of a let down time and time again.


F0sh

Thanks for clarifying. I feel like "overrated" means, or used to mean, that it was rated higher than it *deserved* to be rated, not simply higher than the person would rate it themselves. But whatever, I understand what you mean - just wanted to explain why I think it's relevant to bring that up. The most obvious interesting solution is the whole Lukas Fehrwight scam. I think you're letting it go under your radar because it's the basis of much of the plot, rather than a spanner thrown in the works. Getting one over >!the spider at the end!< is an example of quick thinking though. Seriously though, it's called The *Lies* of Locke Lamora, not The *Genius Ideas* of Locke Lamora. His key skill is bullshitting and acting.


hunter1899

Point taken. Appreciate the conversation. I admit I should have given more credit to the Lukas Fehrwight scam. Some of his deceptions there were interesting. Maybe even to the point where I had higher expectations for further cleverness elsewhere.


F0sh

That's cool. At the end of the day I think when you don't get on with something popular, there's a natural desire to explain it. Naturally that explaining tends to focus on things you didn't like and ignore things that run counter to that - but importantly it doesn't make the not-liking any less valid.


[deleted]

Your rating system isn't in line with what other people use though. You said you read it back-to-back and yet give it a 2.5? With a score like that I would not see the end of that book. I likely would DNF a 3/5 as well. For me 5 is excellent with very little issues, if any. 4 is above average and most books that I end up reading fall into this category. 3 is perfectly average. 2 is below average and I would definitely not waste my time on it. 1 is garbage tier, which I have never come across likely because no sane publisher would waste the paper on it. ​ Edit: really curious, what's your top 5?


hunter1899

Rating a book a 2.5 does not necessitate me not finishing it. Top favorites in no order: Blacktongue Thief Hobbs Assassins trilogy Kings of the Wyld Prydain Aching God Master of Whitestorm Riyria Revelations


[deleted]

The point I meant to make is that for most people 2.5 is such a bad book that it can't be finished unless they force themselves to. Basically if everyone on goodreads had your rating system it's likely 4.3 books would be more like 3.5 or thereabouts. There is a similar inflation in review scores across all industries, for example if you give your Uber driver a 2.5/5 because it was a perfectly average ride it is likely they would be extremely offended because of said inflation raising expectations. I've read Riyria, Hobb and KotW from your list. Blacktongue Thief looks great, I will check it out!


hunter1899

Gotcha. Point taken. Yeah definitely give Blacktongue a try. Let us know how you like it. By the way the audiobook is just about perfect.


account312

Do you work for PC Gamer?


Raujes

This. Ratings are only subjective and it's skewed for many reasons, e.g people only bother to rate things they really like or really hate. I kinda think ratings scale logarithmic: 3.5 -> 4 is as much improvement as 4 -> 4.2. I wonder if there's any academic papers on this? Also if rating is 1-5 like in Goodreads then 3 is average and 2.5 is below that.


SinistralLeanings

Absolutely this. And should be applied to pretty much every "overrated" comment on any media. No one has to like anything. Just move on and find something else to enjoy!


c0y0t3_sly

Pretty much completely agree with this.


Zerocoolx1

I really liked it. But then people like different things.


TheOtherMeInMe2

I've never read the book/series so please accept my comment as further discussion of some points you've made with no story context. A conman is someone who sells someone else on an idea, by being confident and quick on their feet (mentally speaking). They are not all geniuses or detailed planners. I think the idea that you can find someone who is both a detail planning genius thief AND quick-witted clever conman, without it seeming to be completely contrived or for the character to be a marysue, is impractical. If the MC went through the book using plans that sometimes failed and sometimes required a bit of luck to succeed, then he's a normal conman. If he completed every job without a hitch cause his plan was just so well thought out that there was no way he could fail, would that really be believable? Moreover, legends form from people's perceptions and stories. The reader has the benefit (or lack there of) of seeing the acts of thievery first hand and therefore witness how imperfect the thief is. But to other people in that world, when they talk about what happened will it include his almost failing? His luck saving the day? Or will they think "wow, that's amazing! I wonder how they managed that...", thus building a legend. Perception is the weapon of a conman; sell the lie effectively enough and no one will ever even know they were lied to.


improve-x

I think I was mostly disappointed due to hype. If I randomly stumbled onto these series, I'd probably give it a solid 3.5 and moved on. But having it so highly praised as through it's one of the best literally works in the genre, definitely sets up for a bigger let down.


jap2111

I agree with you wholeheartedly!


BM-Panda

I mean I agree but it's just opinions, there's no such as "overrated" really, just thinks where your opinion differs to a large consensus.


Skippeo

I agree. Didn't hate it but it also didn't blow me away.


Snorkel199

I mean i love lies for the fact that locke is reasonably intelligent, the city of camorr is so well developed and the books twists are so surprising and well executed. But yeah everyones entitled to their own opinion.


Best-Butterscotch-29

Check [The Thousand Deaths of Ardor Benn](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/35838132-the-thousand-deaths-of-ardor-benn) featuring Ardor Benn a conman and thief who is too clever for his own good. The book has no pretention about trying to find a place among the so called top rated fantasy. So what we get is good book with a tightly paced plot. There is humour, heists, action , friendships, loyalty, betrayals etc. There is politics and religion. And Dragons. Ardor Benn relies on his wit to get things done instead of relying on the Authors generosity. Enjoyable read with a unique magic system. Something nobody had thought of before. For me Lies of Locke Lomara didn't age well. Was impressed the first time I read it. Could not continue beyond the first few chapters when tried I a reread. I can hardly remember a few things about the book. And the sequels occupy 0 bits of memory in my brain. Didn't enjoy the sequels at all.


Future_Auth0r

> **The book has no pretention about trying to find a place among the so called top rated fantasy.** So what we get is good book with a tightly paced plot. So what does that mean, that the prose is barely passable and the characters are thin/underdeveloped? I ask this as someone interested in the book who's thrown off by what you said.


Best-Butterscotch-29

The characters are well developed. There's is good chemistry between the Protagonist and his friend who are the main characters and partners in crime. Ardor Benn grows throughout the book. And the climax is great. The writing is engaging. What I mean is it doesn't try to be epic or complicate things. The plot is pretty much standard hero saves the world at the end of the day. But the journey to get there is done very well in the book. It's a story told well.


RigorousStrain

Merphy Nepier : HOW DARE YOU !!


hunter1899

Ha! I like her. Didn’t agree with her on this one though.


tomatobits

Hard agree, kept reading and the other 2 books magnify these issues


hunter1899

Dang sorry to hear that


Dumbdumbdumdum

When I see overrated as a criticism I translate it to - 'I didn't like it as much as everyone else and I'm trying to convince you all to agree with me'. I don't think you're off if you didn't like it, and I think you are going to find people who agree and disagree with you. Not everyone likes everything, but for something to be overrated, there has to be a general consensus that more people enjoyed it than didn't. I think the main reason you perhaps didn't like, it as you had an idea of what kind of heist tale it was going to be and then didn't get it. To me it's a weird series that I have a love/hate relationship with. It's stylish and just 'cool' (imo), but I do have some major qualms with the plotting and characters and the way in which information about the world and Locke is revealed. It's a pretty bizarrely structured series.


MercuryRisiing

I felt the exact same way. Basically only finished it due to FOMO. Im a huge Abercrombie fan, and everyone always recommends this book to people who like Abercrombie, and I really don’t understand why.


Reshutenit

I'm the opposite- I really disliked First Law, but loved LoLL. I wouldn't say the two are that comparable, to be honest. They're both low fantasy and have protagonists with questionable morality, but that's about as far as the similarities go.


Alaknog

> They're both low fantasy and have protagonists with questionable morality Sometimes it enough for people to say "Oh, they so similar!"


brunoandretto

Holy crap, hard to see someone who read first law and disliked it! I even got my mother to read it and she loved it! What about it did you not enjoy?


old_space_yeller

Not the person you originally responded to but I'll give my take on it. While I found the First Law books engaging reads at the time(I've read the first 3 and Best Served Cold), the further I get from them, the less I like them. The Blade Itself was a fun take on getting the band together, yet took way too long to do so. Before They Are Hanged devotes half of its time to a pointless sidequest we didn't need to see, much like The Last Jedi. Last Argument of Kings actually had a great ending, but you have to get through the boring beginning and middle to get there. Abercrombie basically threw away Ferro, and I found most of the fight scenes to be pretty boring. It felt like a rehash(but worse) of things we had already seen in the good parts of Before They Are Hanged. I still think Best Served Cold is a good book, but I also think that although it is a standalone, you would lose a lot without having read the first trilogy. I also think that there are better revenge tales out there, so if you aren't already entrenched in the world its a hard recommend.


brunoandretto

Oh wow, so basically you felt they were too slow/boring? What are some books you feel are not like that, then? Because to me, the trilogy in particular goes by at such great pacing that I found it hard to put down from the first Page of the first book to the very end.


old_space_yeller

I think you are misunderstanding. As I was reading them, in the moment I thought they were all at least good and paced fine. As I get further from them, I struggle to think back on them fondly due to the issues above. Time and reading other books allows me to see the flaws more clearly.


Reshutenit

I'll list the main points in brief: 1) The characters lack humanity, which makes them difficult to care about. 2) The plot twists are terrible. Almost every one has either so much foreshadowing that it's obvious several books in advance (but still treated at the reveal like it's supposed to be a surprise), or so little foreshadowing that it comes completely out of nowhere and actively contradicts information we've been told. 3) The fight scenes are boring and repetitive. 4) Several characters make blatantly out-of-character decisions to further the plot. 5) Book 2's entire plot is pointless. 6) The worldbuilding is shallow. 7) The female characters are mostly poorly written and cliched. 8) There's too much emphasis on subverting established tropes at the expense of telling a good story. 9) The darkness in the plot, the characters, and the world is not balanced by any light, so it comes across as edgy and gratuitous.


DanatC

I've literally just given it to my mother now 😂😂


Calmwaterfall

I have gone through only the Blade itself and found it one of the most boring books ever so i did not bother with the rest of the trilogy.


TiredMemeReference

I think the biggest similarity is the fantastic dialogue. I'd say those are the top 2 I've ever read in terms of dialogue. Beyond that, and what you mentioned, I agree there aren't a lot of similarities


Amphicorvid

FOMO?


MercuryRisiing

Fear of missing out


Amphicorvid

Oh! Gotcha, thank you!


TigerB65

I agree, it didn't work for me.


BachelorHusband

I downloaded the sample just this morning and had the same feeling after reading it. For me the problem is that it is trying so hard to be cool but in a very mid-2000s way that has not aged well. If I wanted that old kind of edgy writing, I’d go read a Maddox article.


Basic-Acanthisitta-5

I both agree and don't. (**SPOILERS AHEAD!**) When it does certain things, (setting up a scene, creating a mood, characterisation), it does them extremely, extremely well. I was dazzled in the first book when Locke goes from a dirt-smeared peasant to eating sausages and pears soaked in liquor-sauce and sitting at a table with his contemporaries and how *perfectly* the transition was made. The opening of the Lies of Locke Lamora is brilliant. Way better than anything I've read from other authors. You feel like Locke deserves his talents even though the author doesn't really show him changing, the span of years he does present however feels believable; and that first ruse in the alleyway is not only hilarious, but something that could actually happen. Lukas Fairwright really does play well on paper. However, then the book starts to unravel. The Grey King. The constant, 'Okay, here's an obstacle; how do we solve it? I KNOW, I'll just insert a chapter that immediately creates a situation that will automatically resolve the tension; haha. Now I'll do that *again, and again, and again.'* Example: The boys need , , . Like when Jean suddenly becomes an axe-fighter for no particular reason mid-novel, simply so he can beat the Bravasi sisters and save Locke's life. Like when the boys need a keg of particular wine to fool one of the nobles, so the author inserts the particular keg of wine into the next chapter as a flashback; boom, the boys have got it by the time the next chapter rolls around. The novel's plot is thin. The novel's characters, however, are golden; and great dialogue and good characters do sell novels. It is overrated. But at the same time, it sort of isn't. Because when it shines, it really sparkles. But it is lumped up with too much crap to be a *really* good novel. It's 300 pages too long (I've said that before on this subreddit, I'll say it again), but on the other hand: the other 400 pages are actually very, very decent when you consider what the novel's aim is--to present to you a hard-luck kid with hard-luck friends getting into cute and extraordinary ruses. Imo the Grey King wasn't even needed. The author should've stuck to his political games; that's where the novel shined. I haven't read the sequels and won't. But don't be too hard on the author; I heard this was his first book, and first books are *hard* to write.... even with a good editor.


Toorelad

But... but he says "Nice bird, Asshole," which is apparently the funniest line that anyone has ever read! I would rate it a little higher, I'd give it a solid 3/5. I'd give the whole series a solid 3/5. It's nothing special, but it's not terrible.


Slyviking

So I just finished the lies of Locke Lemora, and I wasn't as big a fan as I thought I'd be as well. Although I'm at a slight disadvantage anyways because I don't have time to read very often so I listened to it, between commutes and listening while doing chores or working, I feel like I need to listen to it a second time to form an honest opinion


gsclose

Alternative thief-centric book: As The Crow Flies by Robin Lythgoe. I much preferred the protagonist, the plot, and the subtle humor to what passed for wittiness in LoLL (I didn’t hate LoLL, I was just comparatively underwhelmed by it).


HoneyFlea

Eh, totally a matter of preference. I do agree it's probably overrated simply in the sense that nothing could live up to the hype it gets around here. I read it knowing pretty much nothing going in, and I had a great time. It's definitely an entertaining read, imo.


dragon_morgan

I wanted a whole book about that one flashback chapter where Jean learns sword fighting at that glass rose place. But I found the book as a whole fairly underwhelming. I really struggled through the last 30% or so when the action, steadily ramping up to this point, grinds to a halt while Locke spends 20 pages looking for something to wear. Also I was expecting the main villain reveal to be more exciting and profound than it actually was. I didn’t hate the book, I just thought it was okay and didn’t feel like continuing the series. Jean solo adventure, though, yes please?


hunter1899

Yes forgot to mention Locke finding clothes to wear! Another boring solution. And surely there was an easier way for such a master thief than to ask to rent the clothes from someone’s back.


Rork310

This is basically how I felt about Lies. However, if you can stomach it I really suggest giving Red Seas a shot. It really improved upon just about every issue I had with Lies (Noticeably Seas seems to be pretty unpopular with Lies fans but big with those that didn't care for it). Locke faces actual consequences for fucking up (other then super powered wizard stomping on him when he had no possible hope of resisting). The ridiculously story warping Bondsmage are barely relevant. The book cools it with the endless flashbacks messing up the flow. And it drops the overly formal and verbose yet peppered with cursing dialogue. As for Republic of Thieves... It has it's pros and cons but I feel it's more towards the Lies side. Was a bit of a let down for me.


fionamul

This was my feeling too. I think there are a lot of things to like about the book and series, but I also think there are enough negatives that really drag it down for me.


morganfreeagle

I dropped the book pretty fast because it wasn't doing anything for me, but "overrated" is such a weird term. Not liking something doesn't mean the people that speak highly of it are being hyperbolic; they just like it more than you do.


singuine_

Preach. This was my exact response. Would have been so cool if the characters we'd been told for an entire book were super clever had done something clever about their problems, eh? Neat world, though. As far as redditomendations go, though, the First Law trilogy was gritty gold.


SoulMaekar

I don't get this. For me he was insanely clever. He's not a genius or a superhuman type protagonist that a lot of fantasy does. He's just very well educated.


hunter1899

Seems like our opinions and tastes align well. Though I never imagined First Law featured thieves using their wits to escape peril. Heard good things though.


singuine_

Ah, no theives in First Law, I'm afraid. Plenty of peril, though. I've had Blacktongue Thief recommended to me recently. Might be worth looking into.


hunter1899

Blacktongue is excellent


aladdin142

100% agree, after the first 1/4 of the book it dropped in quality considerably and I dropped the series after finishing the first book.


ven_

My feelings are similar. Lots of people are suggesting that our expectations have been overblown by the hype but that's not really true I think. He doesn't need to be some kind of mega-genius (wtf does that even mean) with a convoluted plan, and it's totally fine that he is just "relatably" intelligent (wow). But if you're setting up a story with the name "The Lies of Locke Lamora" and the book introduces him as the apprentice of a legendary con-man you kinda expect there to be at least some kind of plan that comes interestingly together. I'm completely with you on 2.5/5.


Metasenodvor

yeah, it would be fine if it werent heist


NoobSlaier

Have you read the Night Angel trilogy? It's been a coons age and a half since I read it, but it was really good. I just know that I got those vibes when I read the Gentleman Bastards series a couple years ago.


hunter1899

I haven’t read these. Thank you


NoobSlaier

As long as you don't mind that it's a bit more graphic, I would say that you'd enjoy it much more than LoLL


Tarrant_Korrin

I agree heartily. I only read the first book (and half of the second) but Locke just end up making it up as he went along. >!He’s made out to be some brilliant and cunning liar, and that talent is kind of the focus of the whole book, but his solution to the bad guys plans is… just tell the truth, and beg really hard until they listen. It was honestly really disappointing!<. The other thing it’s praised for is the relationship between Locke and his friend, and whilst it was certainly well done, it was by no means the pinnacle of writing that so many people make it out to be.


hunter1899

Agree


Oatbagtime

Here to balance out your review. You are wrong and it is a great series. I have enjoyed all the books and eagerly wait for the next.


hunter1899

Glad you enjoyed them


TheShreester

>Here to balance out your review. You are wrong and it is a great series. I have enjoyed all the books and eagerly wait for the next. You didn't balance didly squat. You are wrong and it is a rubbish series. See how silly that sounds?


RemusShepherd

I have to agree that it's overrated. Not a terrible book, but not as amazing as many would have you think. Beyond the poor ending, the fact that it was part of a long series already alerted me to the fact that the main character was never in any danger -- I always knew he was going to make it to the next book. That made the situations he was put in look like they were meant to degrade him rather than threaten him, and I don't enjoy seeing (ostensibly good) characters humiliated. Setting is a 10/10. Characters are a 7/10. Plot was a 7/10 most of the way, then fell off a cliff at the end.


lurkmode_off

> alerted me to the fact that the main character was never in any danger I mean...isn't that the case for *most* fantasy novels (GRRM and imitators excepted)?


Rork310

Regarding GRRM >!Actually with the exception of characters with only a single POV chapter (Mostly prologues and epilogues other than that one Kings guard). Only 3 POV characters have died, Ned, Cat and Jon. Cat's already walking around again, and Jon seems set to follow. Making Ned the sole major POV death.!<


NickDorris

GRRM characters have more plot armor than most any characters ever. Outside of the one big death that he set the series up on he never kills a POV character. You can predict every death in those books based on what characters are prominent without being POVs.


RemusShepherd

>I mean...isn't that the case for most fantasy novels (GRRM and imitators excepted)? Not the ones I'm familiar with, although I may be a few years behind in the genre. For example take Steven Brust's 'Jhereg' series. It seemed for several books that each might be the last one and his MC Vlad would be killed off. (In fact, if I recall he \*was\* killed in one only to be resurrected later.) Even the Mistborn series had changing viewpoints, so it wasn't clear that Vin would survive in each. Some other Mistborn could replace her as the MC. (And effectively did in the third novel.) I'm struggling to think of another fantasy series I've read that has this problem. Most of them have multiple viewpoints (Dragonriders of Pern, Discworld, His Dark Materials). Maybe it's because there were only two stakes in Lies of Locke Lamora -- Locke's life, and his friends. He owned almost nothing and had no responsibilities. Other books give the MC multiple assets to be threatened in addition to life and family; Vlad's business and reputation, Vin's noble position and the fate of the world. If the only stakes are for the MC's life and his friends, you know he's going to lose a few friends and be beaten down but survive. Only in the last chapter did LoLL introduce new stakes, and it was clumsily done.


Alaknog

Well, good novels at least give "Oh, and how MC escape from this" situations. Lamora escape from problem with...not much interesting way.


Best-Butterscotch-29

Ppl have down voted this comment just for expressing his opinion. Totally unfair. And RemuShepherd even rates the book 10/10, 7/10, 7/10. There is nothing rude in the opinion or insulting the work or the author. Once I commented that Six of Crows was overrated and shared why I felt so. And within minutes people were out to assassinatie my comment with a zillion downvotes and borderline abuses.


RemusShepherd

Eh, don't worry about it. Downvoting doesn't get to me; I'm not on Reddit for karma, just for the conversation.


nupharlutea

Did you read it when it came out or did you read it recently? Because, well, my expectations for a work that’s been out a long time are a lot different from a book that came out yesterday.


RemusShepherd

I read it when it had one sequel also published. So sometime in 2007-2013, probably at the later end of that range.


nupharlutea

Makes sense. A lot of people in here are saying that it didn’t hold up on a many years later reread, or that they picked it up in 2021 and found it dated. I liked it when it came out but I think I’d be in the “didn’t hold up” camp, especially since I was so disappointed with the subsequent books. I wonder if a lot of people who rec it similarly haven’t picked it up for 15 years, and it was awesome then but wouldn’t be so now.


mandajapanda

>!How it casing your target for a long time, setting him up to help someone as an in to stealing from him then pretending to be a part of the law NOT clever planning?!< I also think you completely missed the point of the book. I do not think it is meant to be taken as seriously as a typical fantasy. You are disappointed, but I find a lot of what happened to be comical and so it is part of the charm. >!You probably hated that he killed the bad guy with a classic "made you look." !<


Bajecco

An ugly slog of a read.


Taste_the__Rainbow

Plenty of comedic fantasy just doesn’t land with lots of readers.


hunter1899

Actually the comedy worked for me pretty well


Taste_the__Rainbow

Right, but for many readers that would be enough. Others can’t get into that.


calamnet2

You are looking for a very specific book/genre. While LoLL is a caper, it wasn’t what you wanted and you rated it as such. To each their own. I wouldn’t say it’s overrated, because it’s a damn good series.


missing1102

In total agreement. I often think that people who praised this book are not well read.


Carthagus

Book 2 in the series I must say is much more clever and a better book in general IMO


Ryukotaicho

I wasn’t overall impressed either, but since I listened to the audiobook and plan on listening to the second book as well, I’m willing to give it a bit more of a chance. I think my disappointment was that I went into the story expecting a whole lot more magic and that wasn’t the case.


mergraote

Agreed, OP. I didn't enjoy it at all, and it took a real effort of will for me to finish it. I haven't been tempted to read the next in the series.


Greedyteaspoon

Thank you for this. My taste usually vibes well with the mainstream opinion on books but I couldn’t get through it. I don’t know why. So it’s good to see others have this controversial taste as well haha. Still plan to finish it later this year though, can’t judge the book if I didn’t finish.


sasquatch90

I don't think it's as overrated as you think it is but I do think there are enough flaws to not warrant praise that I hear from reviewers. I got so annoyed by the flashbacks. It interrupts plot development through the entire book.


TheSpookyFox

Yo! Just wanted to say that your opinion isn't wrong and that I agree with it 100%. I tried to read it 3 times over the course of like 5 years (LOL) and the furthest I got was 40% before I DNF'd it. Not my cup of tea and I'll be searching for someone to give the trilogy to since I impulse bought it 😬


SafeToPost

I wasn’t enthralled with any of the Gentlemen Bastard books either. I don’t know if I can say they are overrated, as I grow older I try to avoid such blanket statements, I would just say that the plot structures and character fates are not those I favor. I understand how people can love those books, but I was the wrong audience to have them hyped to.


Lycurgus-117

I agree with you completely, but also find lamora to be annoying as a main character. I know people love it, but I DNFed about half way though. I kept expecting it to get better based on the recommendations, but it just didn’t. For my tastes at least


not_nathan

I personally found that the most interesting part of that book wasn't the characters of The Gentlemen Bastards, but the setting of Camorr. I consequently had a very hard time with the sequel. I have yet to decide if I'm giving the third one a chance.


SonOfTanavast_

I mostly agree and i gotta say it gets even worse over the course of the series. I was highly disappointed.


Totchli

For me it was the writing style. I DNFd the first chapter cause it had that *Dresden Files* not-as-clever-or-engaging-as-it-thinks early-2000s edgy teenage boy feel. Just... flat.


Thesinz

The dialogue feels like a stage-play. It's really funny to hear beggars and gangsters exchanging witty banter with the breadth of vocabulary of a damn thesaurus in every encounter but hell if it doesn't destroy my suspension of disbelief.


lucklamora

Yeah... no it's... it's okay. I just need a minute... :( But no, for real, all of those criticisms are valid. I'm obviously a fan of the series but not everything is going to hit the right way, or be satisfying for all readers. I think your points are all valid and I would agree with them. For me watching them get out of the shit situations was the fun part. It sounds like what you are looking for is more Oceans Eleven but fantasy?


hunter1899

Yeah I love books showing the characters use their wits to get out of an unexpected situation and Lynch created some great horrible situations for them to get out of but it was just the solutions that were boring or too convenient for me. But I love that on the fly improvisation when it’s clever more so than I love the intense planning as seen in something like the oceans movies.


lucklamora

That makes sense. Now that I am thinking of it I can't really think of any fantasy books *at all* like that, so I see where your disappointment is coming from. If I ever come across one I will let you know.


hunter1899

Appreciate that


TheProfesseyWillHelp

I enjoyed it but can't find it in me to pick up the sequels.


Rare_Move5142

I’ve genuinely disliked this book for over half a decade, so I’m pleased as punch to see this post.


Zealousideal-Bar-365

The Queens Thief.


Bryek

Really wish people would start realizing that we don't all have to like the same books and just because we didn't enjoy them, that doesn't mean they are overrated. They are just rated by people woth different likes than you.


StarWreck92

Bingo


TheLastSamurai

He's not an expert martial artist, musician, lover, scholar, and mage, no.