TLOLL: The Lies of Locke Lamora vs. The Sting (perspective's role in con artist stories)

[FittenTrim]

DO NOT READ THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU'VE FINISHED THE BOOK AND SEEN 'THE STING'


In the classic movie, The Sting, we follow a con artist (Robert Redford) as he & his partner pull a fast one, and score big cash. Then the partner is murdered, and our hero must go into hiding to escape the people who want him dead.

While being pursued by killers, as well as the local authorities, Redford decides to get revenge on the evil villains who killed his friend.

SOUNDS LIKE LOCKE LAMORA, DOESN'T IT?

But The Sting really shines, and surprises: The biggest twist being the climax, where plot complications build to the point where Redford's character is shot and killed by his new partner Paul Newman, who is also shot and killed. The audience is shocked: how could this be?!? Only for the final reveal that this was yet ANOTHER con! They make the local authorities believe they're dead, so as not to suffer retaliation.

As the movie audience, we've followed Redford's character just as closely as the novel follows Locke's character... but this final twist (they pretend to kill each other) was hidden from us. The film makers have one last con to play to surprise us with.

The book doesn't try this. Instead, the reader spends most of the time inside Locke's head. And from his perspective, we understand what he intends to do... and he does it. While it is interesting, I wasn't surprised by any of his cons because I knew all of Locke's thoughts.

By not having this extra twist, I find the novel doesn't live up to the greats of the con artist stories like The Sting, Oceans Eleven, etc.


I wonder if Lynch could have told the story from another character's perspective and then had more of twists and a more surprising climax.

[aldenoneil]

I tend to agree. The cons just sort of played out, and the only time I can remember the wool really being pulled over the reader's eyes was when the Midnighters (view spoiler)[show up, and it turns out it was Locke posing as a Midnighter (hide spoiler)]. In that case, the surprise was, "Oh, so they're not in danger?" which was, at that point in the story, a tad disappointing.

[FittenTrim]

AldenO'Neil,

You're absolutely correct. And that spoiler which you mention was revealed in the very next chapter!!!

This was to "set up" the plot of people are on to Locke's scam thread. But in a better book, Locke would have been one-step ahead of this... and had yet ANOTHER con to escape.

I.E. How can the reader believe that Locke is a genius con artist, if he never outsmart the reader?!?!

[Courtney]

I like that Locke is not omniscient so that he has to keep thinking on his feet and quickly keep upgrading his scams. What keeps the readers on their toes are the numerous cons and twists from Locke's enemies. I'm about halfway through the sequel and Locke and Jean are having to deal with several double crossing situations again. Its quite fast moving and entertaining. I agree that it would make a good movie.

[Kate]

I considered the Midnighters thing to be authorial cheating and was glad that it wasn't drawn out and didn't happen often.
I'm either inside the characters head or I'm not. I find hiding stuff from the reader that the pov character knows to be inconsistent and distracting.

[aldenoneil]

Kate wrote: "I'm either inside the characters head or I'm not. I find hiding stuff from the reader that the pov character knows to be inconsistent and distracting. "

That's a good point.

Lynch didn't seem to be as consistent (or explicit) with featuring POV characters as, say, G.R.R. Martin, so it didn't bug me as much to have the switcheroo, where we don't get to know what Locke knows.

In spite of that, I might have enjoyed the book more had Lynch gotten a little more inside the heads of his characters.

[FittenTrim]

For me, it goes back to "show" vs. "tell"

I felt that Lynch was constantly TELLING me that Locke & his bastards were brilliant con artists.

I wish the specific actions and cons which Locke and his crew pulled had SHOWN me their brilliance.


May not be fair to compare to other works of art, BUT con artist stories tend "show" the brilliance of the cons/con artists by 'pulling one over' on the audience.