The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch

This is the first book in a planned series of seven (only two have been released so far). It is an interesting story in an elaborately crafted world, captivating and funny, but, as any book, it has both its pros and cons. Here are my thoughts.
First, about the world in which this book takes place. This is a world clearly modelled upon the middle ages in Europe – the social structure is certainly suggestive of that time period, due to the great discrepancy between the rich and the poor. The nobility lives in its own world, completely separate from the lower classes. But the author went farther, he took this middle-age society and gave it a fantasy setting, and the result is a painstakingly created world, yet at times, it simply doesn’t make sense, perhaps because it’s just too detailed. The author went to the effort of creating a whole new religion, as well as different names for the times of day, different names of days, different money, different customs….yet within all these creations, references suddenly pop up to our world, that is, the reader’s world.
The biggest example of this is the references the characters make to the religions of the reader’s world, despite the author’s detailed explanations of the various gods, temples, and beliefs in Camorr. The characters often swear by the “thirteen gods,” each of the gentlemen bastards was once apprenticed at a temple to a god or goddess, and Locke himself, as he states on a few occasions is a priest of Perelandro. All of these deities are creations of the author, and are in no way modelled upon various mythologies in our world, as often happens in fantasy stories. Yet after having gone to all this trouble, the author seems to have gotten writer’s block when it came to expressions of frustration, and therefore, at a critical moment, Locke expresses himself with the following phrase “why the hell should I bother telling you anything?”(635) In all the explanations of the various gods and faiths in Camorr, hell, the devil, or any kind of afterlife have not been mentioned. So how is it that a facet of the Christian religion suddenly exists in a world where this faith is unheard-of?
 My next point is about Locke’s methods, that is, what would be called con-artistry in our world, and which seems not to exist in Locke’s. Camorr has a vast underworld of thieves and lawbreakers, so vast, in fact, that within the larger social structure of Camorr, the thieves and criminals have their own society, rules over by the Capa of Camorr. Clearly, lawbreaking has become a way of life for a large portion of the population, and this population has created their own community. It does not seem viable, then, that with so much crime going on, no one has reached the idea that con-artistry, plots and clever thievery can be used to relieve those who possess money of it. One of the characters, Ibelius, tells Locke “I’ve never conceived of such a thing as this false-facing of yours.”(613). This proves that the idea of con-artistry is so unheard-of that it does not even have a name and is simply called ‘false-facing’.
 My final issue with the book is the constant use of swearwords. It is not that I have problems with the f-word in general, the issue is that, in the English language, this word has come to have particular connotations (I won't go into its etymology here), and  therefore it is generally used to evoke a certain response and, in literature, it is often used to add emphasis or show a character’s strong emotions, or sometimes to develop a character’s personality/origin. Yet in this book, this word is used by everyone of every social class, in every situation, all the time. Therefore, it adds no emphasis to anything, it cannot be used to differentiate between a character’s different moods and reactions, it has no purpose whatsoever except to displease the reader with unnecessarily vile language. It is simply scattered liberally throughout the pages because the author seemed to have wanted to demonstrate how comfortable he was with the use of swearwords. And another point to consider: in a place where the native language is clearly not English, and where the existent languages are made up, it is curious that a word that is so part of our English language and resonates so with the reader is used so much by the characters, sometimes as an actual swearword as it is used in our world.
 However, having set aside these discrepancies, there is much in this book that Lynch must be applauded for, and above all, the character of Locke Lamora. Locke’s character is well crafted, he has his flaws and his strengths, and, above all, he has that which demands respect: love for his friends and loyalty to them. In this way, he embodies what I feel is one of the messages of the book:  that everyone, even thieves and criminals, have hearts and feelings, that they can be hurt and have things to fight and die for, and that they can and perhaps should be respected for these feelings, no matter their other misdeeds. Most admirably, he states at the end: “But you could have settled for simple theft. I would have given it all to keep Calo and Galdo and Bug alive.” When asked “What thief does not fight to hold what he has?” he replies “One that has something better. The stealing was more the point for us than the keeping.”Locke can be admired in his own way: like Robin Hood, he only steals from the rich, and it is not greed that pushes him to these actions. For him, thievery is a game, a way of exercising his intelligence, a battle of wits in which he can triumph and celebrate victory with those close to him. Furthermore, he even decides to rather recklessly save a great number of people who never meant anything to him, and not only out of a desire for revenge, since he says  “I’m a thief, and maybe even a murderer, but this is too much.” With his actions, he breaks all stereotypes, suggesting that thieves and murderers too can have a conscience and a bit of altruism.
 Unfortunately, the climax of the book seemed rather weak, or, rather, a mix of the unbelievable and the unexplainable. Partially because it was so anticlimactic (all Locke did to save all of Camorr’s nobility was convince them to move a few statues), partially because Locke’s confrontation with the Gray King was so unbelievable. It’s been emphasized again and again that Locke is small, weak, and rather helpless with a blade, butt makes up for it all with his intelligence. Like Artemis Fowl, he uses wits rather than strength to win. So it was rather unexpected when, instead of coming up with a plan, Locke goes to a fight he knows he’s going to lose, with no backup plan whatsoever, and nearly gets killed attempting to win a fight he is bound to lose, and which he survives through a combination of luck and a flash of brilliance as he is almost defeated.
 All in all, the book was entertaining and had a good plot (yes, this is a fairly superficial way to judge a novel). But, as I stated above, I think it gets across a message in an entertaining fashion, and I’ll be excited to see what Mr. Lynch comes up with in his next few novels.