Fantasy Book Club discussion

How did you feel about the way this novel was paced? With the prologue and then between each chapter, we got a flashback episode of Locke's early life. Did these switches in scene confuse or distract? Or did they enhance the story of what was happening in the "now" chapters?

I really enjoyed it too. It reminded me of the pacing of Tarrantino movies, which I love. I could easily visualize the scene shifting from Locke's early life to his present, and back again.

I liked the flashbacks as well, I thought that they were very well done.

I liked the flashbacks at first. I quite enjoyed that story more than the story of the set-up of the Salvaros, or whatever, which I felt dragged on a bit too long.

But once the action got going in the present, I felt like the flashbacks became more of a hindrance. On one hand, it was interesting to see more of the characters fleshed out, of sorts. On the other hand, I didn't like the breaking of the tension. If I'm on the edge of my seat, I don't want to go to a commercial break (which is sort of what I kept thinking of). I suppose it's meant to extend the suspense but, for me, it just broke the stride.

(Keeping in mind that only part where I was dying of suspense was when Locke was dressed as the Grey King - that whole sequence. I knew he was in a boatload of trouble, and I knew he'd get out of it, but I couldn't see how, and I was waiting for the payoff... and then poof.)

Also, they got a little too foreshadowy. It got to the point where you knew that whatever was dicussed in the flashback would become relevant after the break. I like my foreshadowing a little more subtle and off-handed.

One thing I didn't like at all, that, was the flash-forwards, so to speak, where you'd see something happen (like when Locke and Jean posed as the guard people to the Salvaro guy), and then we backtracked to see the set-up. I was so glad when he dropped that particular device.

I enjoyed the flashbacks taking a look at Locke's life in the past. I thought they were one of the most interesting parts of the book, and I think it's always nice to get a backstory for the characters.

blackrose wrote: "One thing I didn't like at all, that, was the flash-forwards, so to speak, where you'd see something happen (like when Locke and Jean posed as the guard people to the Salvaro guy), and then we backtracked to see the set-up. I was so glad when he dropped that particular device...."

That was actually my favorite type of the flash-forward-and-back stuff. To tell the story in linear order might have snuffed out some of the surprises we got to experience. To me, it worked to show it done, then go back and show how.

I guess I just didn't see those parts as surprises, really. At least, I don't recall being particularly surprised by anything that was revealed in that manner. *shrugs*

I loved the whole thing. The flashbacks helped break the tension but they also helped me understand the characters a bit more

I was the opposite, blackrose. :-) When we went from the past to the present at first, I just kept thinking, "Who's this Jean guy? And Bug? What kind of name is that, anyway?" I would have liked a little more explanation at the beginning of who each character was. But once I got that sorted out, I liked the flashbacks, and I even liked how they foreshadowed what was to come.

I loved the flash backs. Just because there is so much background information you need to know concerning how the kids were trained and how their personality developed and how Locke became leader. So much that half the book without the time lines would have to be set in the childhood and it would take us about 200 pages to get to the main plot. And then we would have to remember stuff that happen 50 pages ago that is critical to understanding storyline.

i think that by using flashbacks we were able to learn critical information when we needed to learn it rather then having a vague memory of something that was mention in three sentences in the beginning of the book.

Maxi, I agree with you. I thought that the bouncing around really kept me on the edge of my seat. We got enough information early to know the basics, but then had other things revealed as they became relevant. I thought the style of this book worked perfectly.

I savored the flashbacks. Expertly used to offset the twists of the present and just enough enlightenment to complement current events.

That was one of my favorite parts of the novel, Jon. I'd love to see Quentin Tarantino direct a movie version. I think he would do the flashback and forward again very well.

I actually thought they were horribly done...

I liked the novel, but the flashbacks (typically my favorite literary device) were not consistant, as they begin telling his life in the past, and end up just telling you random tidbits about the town Camorra, instead of just one way or the other.

I think the flashbacks of his past were cool, but if thats what he wanted to do with the flashbacks he should have made all of them so, not run out 3/4s of the way there and then just make something up.

However, the tidbits about the world kind of opened up the setting, that did seem sort of enclosed until those parts. He could have made them all tidbits, and then made the past brought out in dialogue, like the characters telling Bug how they met. Or just leave the entire past to the prologue book he is coming out with.

I really didn't like the inconsistencies.

I really liked the flashbacks actually because most of them were related to things going on in the present which helped the reader connect them if they thought them through