Laurie King's The Game

[lagilman]

Okay, so I jumped into this book, expectations high because, well, it's Laurie King. It's a Mary Russell book.

And, for the most part, those expectations were fulfilled.

The language is beautiful (her descriptions of India of the time are quite moving and totally believable), the character interactions are totally human and just rough enough to give the proper three dimensionality, and although the pacing starts slow it, you realize soon enough, does so intentionally, and picks up where it needs to. And the scene of the pig-sticking was quite dead-on, from what I've read of that sport. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

And yet, from the very first scene I had hestitations. And when I read the last page, those hesitations were still with me. There wasn't any real sub-plot at all, which made the book seem slighter than it should have been (and there were a number of places where a subplot could have been developed out of the material available), and while reading I was too aware of the tricks of the trade, making me feel like a music fan who, instead of listening to the incredible voice of the singer, is instead fascinated by the mechanics of her breath control.

Too, I was able to predict quite easily where the plot was going, although I was uncertain about the loyalties of one character until the last five chapters.

Overall, I'd give it an 8 of 10, with the assumption that her publisher wanted another Mary Russell book, damn it, and she was under the deadline gun. Still an excellent book, and once again I'm glad that I buy her in hardcover, and don't wait for the paperback.

Okay, I shall now wait for those of you who think otherwise to step up to the plate with rebuttals...

Comments

[archer904.livejournal.com]

What sort of "tricks of the trade" are you referring to? I understand your music analogy, but as a writer I have to admit a certain curiosity as to what the Universally Recognized Tricks of the Trade are.

[lagilman]

What sort of "tricks of the trade" are you referring to?


Hrm. Redirecting suspicion onto another character by placing him or her into an abigious situation where there could be several interpretations of an action or a conversation, for one.

Setting up a situation which isn't what it appears, which you will only discover later, is another (and in this case it was so obvious I wondered if it was intentionally flimsy or not, which distracted me from the story itself).

And in one case, the author stepped away from POV to tell us things that nobody could know, in order to give us information that we couldn't get any other way. That works, sometimes, but not only was it a one-time distraction, but nothing was ever done in terms of using that information in any interesting or plot-forwarding way, so it was a risk without a payoff.

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

There wasn't any real sub-plot at all, which made the book seem slighter than it should have been (and there were a number of places where a subplot could have been developed out of the material available),

I agree, and I was a bit disappointed in the ending. Though she created a lot of interesting characters with all the people in the palace, she didn't do much with them. It would have been interesting if she had had Mary stay there longer, maybe had a subplot involving some of those characters. I enjoyed it, and the descriptions of India were fantastic, it really came alive, but it just didn't have the level of complexity I tend to expect from her after the first few Mary Russell books.

[lagilman]

Yes, exactly! It wasn't that she was writing any less than what we expect from her, there just wasn't enough there. I wanted to know more about his 'pets,' and what might have happened to earlier ones -- were they broken and discarded? Did he use them in some way? What was going to happen to the ones there? Etc, etc. And there could ahve been some way to tie our young American into that thread, maybe have him have another agenda that just 'bit player in the Game.'

Still. Doesn't make me any less willing to buy the next one. I suppose that's a testament to the author's skill.

[equesgal.livejournal.com]

Well, after all the excitement about this author I went and ordered "The Beekeeper's Apprentice." So I have quit a ways to go until I read her latest.

Thanks for the indirect intro to a new author!
Sue

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Between thee and me, Beekeeper is still the best in the series. While my admiration for Mary Russell keeps dropping with every new book, I still adore Beekeeper.

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

I pretty much had the same reaction. It was really more of a straightforward adventure yarn rather than a mystery, and felt kind of lightweight compared to the earlier books. Also, I felt that the character of Kimball O'Hara showed up a bit late in the plot, and never got developed as strongly as I would've liked. My sense of him as a character came almost entirely from my memories of reading Kim last year and not from anything King did with him.

Still, the writing was excellent, all the other characters came across very well, and I had lots of fun with the book overall.

[lagilman]

Since I've never read Kim (I know, I know *hanging head*) I actually got an very good sense of him as Laurie wrote him -- an itneresting character and it did make me want to grab a copy of the book to take along with me on vacation....

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did kind of wonder how the character would come across to someone who hadn't read Kim. I do think that having Kipling's book so fresh and vivid in my mind hindered my ability to enjoy O'Hara's characterization on its own terms.

[girasole.livejournal.com]

Fascinating.

I was completely taken with this, more so than with her last Mary Russell, which I thought displayed some of the weaknesses several of you have mentioned here. The last one I thought was lighter in plot that I like, and less resolved.

The Game, however, I found utterly absorbing. The set pieces were beautiful and beautifully written. The local color was exquisitely drawn. And I nearly cried when Mary cut her hair in the service of the story. (Obviously, that particular element is going to figure in the next one!)

I am a few titles behind in the Kate Martinelli series, and I have reviewed a couple of Laurie King's stand-alones, which are very dark (and marvelously wrought) indeed. But nothing she does is as satisfying to me as this series.

I don't quite know how to rebut Suri and Rusalka's fairly dim views (except to note that even when King's not great by your lights she's damn good) but I was in another place with this book.

[lagilman]

I don't know if I'd describe my reaction as "fairly dim" to be honest. An 8/10, and thorough enjoyment are pretty high praise, actually.

(unlike the poor author of City Boy who got shredded in the NYTBR today -- ouch!)

I think the complaints that are appearing here were not about what was on the page (which was excellent) but what wasn't there -- and what we expected from her.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I can't comment directly on The Game, but I will throw in my $.02 on the series as a whole.

Looking at the comments in this thread, even the praise for the book, and I can finally put my finger on why I gave up on A Letter of Mary after two tries at reading it and am slowly giving up on the series as a whole, and it's not because I don't like how she resolved the Holmes/Russell relationship.

It's because she's barely writing mysteries anymore. The Moor was something of an aberration, because after Beekeeper, King slowly slid away from the whole mystery genre, so even when she attempts a whodunit, there's not much who and not a whole lot of dunit either.

Look at the comments in this thread. You see the tricks of the trade instead of being swept away. ltlj talks about how the background description came alive but the story didn't. marinarusalka calls it an adventure more than a mystery. Even girasole's great praise talks about the set pieces and the description and how she was swept away by the beauty of them all - and not one word regarding the puzzle that is supposed to be the heart of any Holmes story or Holmsian pastiche.

Even when y'all like the book, you're not liking the actual mystery.

That's why A Letter of Mary hit the donation boxes; because in three chapters there wasn't even a hint of puzzle yet, and after Da Vinci Code I wasn't going to get all shocked and interested just at the suggestion that there was more to Mary Magdalene that hits the eye. (That very topic has almost completed the gamut from shocking to cliche.)

I have O Jersualem and haven't read it yet; I'm hoping that I'll enjoy it more since it's set during the first book which I love so much.

And in the meantime (she adds wickedly) I also have the last two Carole Nelson Douglas Irene books in the TBR stacks...

[girasole.livejournal.com]

I cannot argue -- there is less mystery and more story with each book. I confess however, that with Laurie King this bothers me not at all. I don't read her for the mystery, I read her for her extraordinary prose style and the complexity of her characters, in this series and in her others.

It's true, Suri, that 8/10 is a pretty high score. I think what I was responding to was the tone of your comments. You didn't sound delighted. If indeed you were hearing not the music but the phrasing and breath control, to borrow your elegant metaphor, that is not a small a disappointment.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

there is less mystery and more story with each book. I confess however, that with Laurie King this bothers me not at all.

Hey, different strokes. :>

But it finally put a definition to my free-floating disinterest in the Mary Russell series beyond the marriage. (I'm not getting over that marriage any time fast.) When I see "Holmes" in the description, I want a Victorian mystery first and foremost. I don't care if it's gothic (Young Sherlock Holmes), a straightforward puzzle (the actual SH books, the British Young Sherlock Holmes), feminist (Beekeeper, Elementary My Dear Irene), or even broad parody (Schlock Holmes, Without a Clue) as long as I get a competent whodunit.

If Laurie King wants to head in a different direction, more power to her, but I'm not interested in coming along for the ride.

[ltlj.livejournal.com]

When I see "Holmes" in the description, I want a Victorian mystery first and foremost.

Yes, I think that's what bugs me too. I was expecting a twist ending, with Holmes or Mary or somebody confronting the murderer who will then explain how he did it etc, and I didn't get one. And the cast of characters she set up in the palace were just perfect for a murder-intrigue plot, so when nothing much happened with them (including Sunny, the girl who was set up as being in all this possible peril, and then there was no peril, zilch, nada) it was disappointing.

I didn't like "A Letter of Mary" either, though I did enjoy "The Moor" and "O Jerusalem" nearly as much as the first book.