You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ejrathke 's review for:
Red Seas Under Red Skies
by Scott Lynch
I liked this more than the first book. I think the main reason might be that there are far fewer flashbacks, so the novel always has its momentum pushing you forward.
The weakest part of this book is everything that happens before they get on a sea, which is a bit of a problem because that's half the novel, and half of that half of the novel is flashbacking to how we got to where we are. Or, it's not that the first half is all weak. The parts dealing with the heist are actually quite good, but the momentum is always getting broken to show us something that happened two years before the heist, which isn't as obnoxious as constantly jumping back fifteen years, the way the first book does, but it is like driving down a highway that has a speedbump every five miles.
I also think everything sort of wraps itself up too quickly and too neatly.
I'll just put some spoiler tags here:
Which is a somewhat unsatisfying way to get to the ending. For Locke to basically go, Why didn't we think of this obvious thing! Now everything is easy and had we thought of this 300 pages ago, the novel could've ended back there before we even went to sea!
Which, in retrospect, makes the whole sea voyage unnecessary, and mostly just a reason to--what? give Jean a love interest to take tragically (and problematically) away?--write about pirates without really doing much else. Which is both fine and awesome and completely stupid.
So I don't know. The book as a whole is kind of murky at points, especially in retrospect, but it's also just a lot of fun. When Lynch is having fun, we're all having fun!
I think the problem really does stem from him wanting to write epic fantasy books instead of smaller fantasy heists. The larger tapestry of the world and so on--I don't think it adds to the story he's telling. We don't need a fully fleshed out world with deep lore and history. Or, I mean, you can have that, but don't let it get in the way of telling the fun swashbuckling yarn you're actually giving us.
To put it another way: Lynch can absolutely do all the worldbuilding he wants and believes is necessary for him to understand the world, but the reader only needs a sliver of that.
But, yeah, overall, I quite liked this. Liked it more than the first, despite most people seeming to think the first is best, but I'm contrarian like that, I suppose.
The weakest part of this book is everything that happens before they get on a sea, which is a bit of a problem because that's half the novel, and half of that half of the novel is flashbacking to how we got to where we are. Or, it's not that the first half is all weak. The parts dealing with the heist are actually quite good, but the momentum is always getting broken to show us something that happened two years before the heist, which isn't as obnoxious as constantly jumping back fifteen years, the way the first book does, but it is like driving down a highway that has a speedbump every five miles.
I also think everything sort of wraps itself up too quickly and too neatly.
I'll just put some spoiler tags here:
Spoiler
I like that they don't exactly get the result they want, but it all comes together quite rapidly, which makes you wonder: why didn't they do this a long time ago?Which is a somewhat unsatisfying way to get to the ending. For Locke to basically go, Why didn't we think of this obvious thing! Now everything is easy and had we thought of this 300 pages ago, the novel could've ended back there before we even went to sea!
Which, in retrospect, makes the whole sea voyage unnecessary, and mostly just a reason to--what? give Jean a love interest to take tragically (and problematically) away?--write about pirates without really doing much else. Which is both fine and awesome and completely stupid.
So I don't know. The book as a whole is kind of murky at points, especially in retrospect, but it's also just a lot of fun. When Lynch is having fun, we're all having fun!
I think the problem really does stem from him wanting to write epic fantasy books instead of smaller fantasy heists. The larger tapestry of the world and so on--I don't think it adds to the story he's telling. We don't need a fully fleshed out world with deep lore and history. Or, I mean, you can have that, but don't let it get in the way of telling the fun swashbuckling yarn you're actually giving us.
To put it another way: Lynch can absolutely do all the worldbuilding he wants and believes is necessary for him to understand the world, but the reader only needs a sliver of that.
But, yeah, overall, I quite liked this. Liked it more than the first, despite most people seeming to think the first is best, but I'm contrarian like that, I suppose.