Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: EUOL on May 30, 2005, 08:17:25 PM
-
Please post general responses to the book here--things you think might spark discussion, and therefore (hopefully) help me make a better book out of the novel.
In answer to a question Ookla asked on the other thread, Yes, I've read Lemony Snicket.
I've recently been reading a lot of YA and middle-grade, something I had always wanted to do, but never really had a good excuse for. As I read, Lemony Snicket stood out to me as probably the best line-by-line written of the works (aside from Harry Potter.)
I had a problem with it, though. I have a lot of trouble latching onto the characters in the LS books. I think that's because the level of absurdity is SO high. Also, there doesn't seem to be character progression, or even really progression through plotting. In other words, the books are amazingly good little comedic essays, but they just aren't as good in the 'storytelling' department.
I also read Artemis Fowl. This had better storytelling, but the writing just wasn't (in my mind) up to the caliber that it could have reached. There was some very nice character development, but the plotting was just a tad weak.
So, my thought was "Why don't I plot something like Artemis Fowl, then try and make it a little bit zany, a little more like Lemony Snicket." Then, to try and make certain it wasn't TOO derivative, I put the Brandon stamp on it--i.e. a cleverish magic system, some fun characters, and some puzzle-style plot twists.
So, that was my philosophy for this book. I realize that it's going to be rough in parts still. I wrote and edited it in eighteen days! Also, I worry that in places it sounds a little TOO much like Lemony Snicket. (Personally, I think this is a bigger problem in the beginning--for instance, the author introduction to chapter two--than it is in later chapters.)
Advice, comments, and identification of problem spots would be appreciated.
-
DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE FINISHED THE BOOK.
The ending will be ruined for you if you read on.
Are you sure you've finished the book?
THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP READING IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY FINISHED ALCATRAZ.
Okay, if the ending is spoiled for you after all those very clear warnings, than it's your own fault.
So, people who've read it, what do you think of the ending? I was discussing it with EUOL yesterday, and he already heard my views, so I think he'd like to hear some others. How did you react to the book once you realized that the scene promised in the very first line of the novel does not occur in the book? What was your response as a reader?
-
Here's something I need your help on. So please, anyone who's read the book, give me advice here.
My agent really wants me to put the book into first person. He thinks this would help it have its own voice, and let me shrug off the Lemony Snicket influence. Now, if I do this, it's probably going to change the tone of the book drastically. I think I can maintain all of my favorite quips, but the air of the 'author' will be gone, instead replaced with a more 'storyteller at the campfire' feel.
The voice would probably grow to be less stiff and formal, becoming more conversational. This would certainly help me stand out from Snicket, and it would give a stronger presence to Alcatraz in the book. However, it would certainly be a change. What do you all think?
-
Well, point of view in your narrative things is a problem. Usually they're in third-person "the author," but sometimes you do use "I" and "my" etc: it needs to be more consistent.
However...the Lemony Snickett books ARE in first person! (For example, "a town quite near you has enacted a law preventing me from coming within 5 miles of city limits" (rough quote).) So how would putting your book in first person take you further away from the unfortunate events books? I think using the "the author" and "writing books about yourself in third person" lines helps to differentiate yourself from Snicket. But there are a few places where I thought it was dangerously close, and will detail in the detailed comments.
But maybe you should provide a small rewriting example to compare?
[EDIT:]
Errr, I think I misread that completely. You mean doing the whole thing from Alcatraz's first person point of view, NOT from a indeterminately far-future disguised Alcatraz's point of view. Well, it would definitely make it entirely different from Snicket. But it seems like it would be an entirely different book from what you've got, which isn't a bad book. Would it really make it better enough, and avoid problems, to warrant the change? That's a good question.
First person is hard to do. Have you done anything in first person other than the hardboiled technopunk story? That worked well in my opinion, but this is a very different situation. Anyway, you currently have a narrator that knows a great deal more than the main character, and that would be lost. Well...you could conceivably have your story switching between a far-future I and a just-past-the-moment I, but that would be confusing.
Umm...I don't want to think about it any more right now.
-
You've got it now, Ookla. (And, I realize there were a couple of POV errors in the original author-interjections.)
Will changing the narrative to first person make it better. I don't think so.
Will it make it feel less like Lemony Snicket? Yes.
So, is the change in tense (which I think will weaken the story just slightly) worth the added feel of originality the book will have? My agent thinks so. I'd like to know what you all think.
Personally, I don't really like first person. Maybe it's just because I've read fewer books that use it. Either way, I'm not sold on the changes to the book this will make.
However, I think my agent has something of a point. He thinks that the author interjections interfere with the storytelling, and that a first person transformation would meld the two much better.
I've polished off two chapters in the first person, and am sending them to you two. Let me know what you think.
-
You have no idea how tempting it is to read this thread.
Where's that file, EUOL?
-
Sent just a few seconds before I saw your post, actually.
-
aHA. Yay. ;D
-
I love first person. Maybe that's because my favorite books ever are written in it. But I think it would help a LOT.
Past that.... man, I really don't like most of the first half. Do you want me to believe you're actually writing a book or not? It's too goofy. It's a full-on parody up until the last 5 or 6 chapters.
And I think that first person would remove a lot of the bits that make it so..... Piers Anthony.
-
See, that's where we differ, Fuzzy. I love the quirky narrator. Of course, I am an avid Lemony Snicket fan, and enjoy movies like Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Emperor's New Groove. That is where I place the humor in this book--postmodern, kind of absurdist, always poking fun at and drawing attention to itself. Oh, and from the little I know of Hitch-hikers Guide, I'd put it in the same category as well. This isn't a deep ponderous book, but it is funny and quirky while also being sincere. I would really be sad to see the narrator in 3rd person go--I think a lot would be lost. And I hate to think that no one can ever write in this quirky way again because it's been done by Lemony Snicket. That said, I do agree with Ookla that there were some points that it was too similar--and I also detailed those in the manuscript I wil be giving directly to EUOL.
But, I haven't read the revised chapters in first person (my project later today), so I will reserve further judgement until I have done so.
-
Oh don't get me wrong, I enjoy the quirky narrator. I laughed out loud in several places (which will be marked in my notes EUOL.) I just don't think it's publishable the way it is because the narration clashes so much with the any seriousness the story has. I can't get into it because it bounces back between two personalities.
-
I just don't think it's publishable the way it is because the narration clashes so much with the any seriousness the story has. Â I can't get into it because it bounces back between two personalities.
I can see your point. You should get EUOL to send you the first few chapters he wrote in first person. It seems that it will solve a lot of the problem of bouncing back and forth between serious and silly. I think I still prefer the quirky 3rd person narrator, but like I said I enjoy that sort of humor. The voice works well in first person, though, so I think it is just stubbornness that makes me cling to the third person.
Read the revision in first person and see if that solves the problem while maintaining the humor.
-
I just read the 1st person re-write, and I didn't like it. It felt flatter. The first was derivative of one relatively new style, yes, but this felt like a retread of a thousand stories from the slush pile back at the Edge. This is not meant as a reflection on the author, but as a comment on first person in general.
First person, unless it is done REALLY well, is annoying for me to read. It's even more annoying to read if it's third person transposed into first person. It's meant to give a greater sense of immediacy, but to me it seems artificial, and pushes me back a step.
I DO think that the author interjections work better in first person -- perhaps because it's less of a stretch for me to believe that the author is actually sitting there writing it. Unless you build a strong case for why a person with so much going on in his life would take the time to sit and write such a long work, it just doesn't ring true. Even Princess Diaries, which I've just gotten through four volumes of, stretches that believability just a bit -- there just aren't enough hours in her day to write all that.
If Alcatraz is writing from years later, then how does he remember every detail so clearly? I can't even remember that much detail a week later. An omnicient narrator removes that question, and that's why it's used so much.
I'd suggest a compromise -- make the Storyteller be first person, and the story third. There's lots of precedent for this -- take Kipling for example. You can have the Storyteller be Alcatraz, or rather, somebody pretending not to be Alcatraz, and that would give him an excuse to be telling the story in third person. To make it more chummy, you could have the Storyteller admit to knowing Alcatraz at the time, and therefore be privy to many of the details and his emotional state etc...
Anyway that's my take on it.
-
So, people who've read it, what do you think of the ending? ... How did you react to the book once you realized that the scene promised in the very first line of the novel does not occur in the book? What was your response as a reader?
I thought, "Oh, that sneaky Author, he threw in another hook. You just can't trust them can you?" I thought it was funny, if a little underhanded. It certainly didn't leave me unfulfilled.
-
Well as the story got past the climax and they escaped the library I was thinking, "Oh, well good for them and HEY. No altars? Ok, well that just figures."
-
Karen,
The reason I used the whole 'The Author' thing was twofold. First, it was an attempt to distinguish myself from the Lemony Snicket style. Second, it was a bit of an internal joke--the gag was that Alcatraz was writing this story about himself, referring to himself in the third person. So, when he referred to himself in the narrative as 'the author' he was doing the exact same thing.
Your suggestion, however, has merit. I'll add it to the stack of things to consider on this book. (Which wasn't supposed to be as troubling as it has turned out to be.)
-
I also give my thumbs-down to the two first-person chapters you sent. The switching between I-as-narrator and I-as-protagonist just doesn't work. It's too jarring, and it feels really artificial.
There are also too many things that sound like they really should be in present tense but aren't, like "I was not named..." That whole passage just reads badly now.
I really like the way it was before, with the narrator pretending he and the protagonist were different people. That gives the story something unique in my experience, and the rewrite feels very lacking for its loss. It came off as clumsy storytelling.
That is not to say the first version was perfect. There are definitely parts of the narration in the original that caused confusion and hindered immersion, but they are fixable.
-
So I've just finished reading over the first two chapters in both POVs. I'd have to say the shift to first person doesn't work for me. First of all, I personally think that one of the advantages of first person in a YA novel is that it connects to the readers--it purports to be written by a kid like them. This advantage is lost with your approach, because you have Alcatraz writing the book as an adult recalling things that happened to him as a child. This was done extensively in pre-YA days. It was a genre referred to as a Boy Book. Huck Finn broke that mold, and returning to it . . . I just don't dig it. Not that you're writing a Boy Book, but I think there's a reason it was done away with.
Secondly, as you have it right now, it feels like a third person POV that's been changed line by line into first person. I would say that if you really want to give it a go as first person, then a total rewrite would be necessary. It only took you like two weeks anyway--what's another two or three? First person is a different beast than third, and there are some things that work well in third that don't in first. For example, I think your witty hook at the beginning works in third, but not in first. I got too confused by all the leaps every which way from one time to another. First person doesn't handle flashbacks and flashforwards well.
Then again, I know you've said you're not wholly comfortable with first person. I'm not sure your agent's idea to switch it is the best approach if it's not a technique you're comfortable with. I'll have to read the book in third to see about the Lemony Snicket parallels, and then maybe I can give you my two cents on how--and if--you really need to change them for the market. But first I think I'll finish Elantris--I just did this to give you some more immediate feedback. Peace, Love, Dope. (Can anyone name that film?)
-
Field of Dreams.
I think you should have somebody read both versions but have them read first person first--possibly without knowing that a third person version exists. I can't shake the impression from many of these comments that people dislike the first person simply because it clashes with their first impression of how it "should" be.
-
Peace, Love, Dope. Â (Can anyone name that film?)
I know this! It's right on the tip of my tongue...blah bwa baa...okay, no it's not. :P
I'm stumped.
-
Field of Dreams.
I think you should have somebody read both versions but have them read first person first--possibly without knowing that a third person version exists. I can't shake the impression from many of these comments that people dislike the first person simply because it clashes with their first impression of how it "should" be.
Yay! Fell solved it, so now it won't annoy me all day.
I agree. I think EUOL should send it to someone "untainted" and have them read the first person. I didn't have as much of a problem with it in first person as some of the others on here did--I felt it still worked--but I missed the third person. It would be interesting to see what an entirely new reader would say.
-
Yeah, that crossed my mind as well. But I still think I'm right!!
-
I suspect that you're probably right as well. If an "untainted" reader reads the first person first, then the third, and likes the third a lot better, then we'll have something.
-
Unfortunately, that means that to get someone completely "untainted" it has to be someone who isn't on TWG--or at least that can swear to high heaven that they haven't read this spoiler thread. Otherwise, they will know what we are "testing" them for. I'm not sure who EUOL would trust who isn't on the board--at least, off the top of my head.
-
I could ask Helena (Pink Bunkadoo)...if she hasn't read this thread...
-
Ok, I fear i'm in a minority, and I hope this doesn't make me unpopular, but EUOL, I couldn't get into it until you got to the end and it was less "whacky."
I guess my problem is really that I know how witty you can be, and this book was more often than not just silly without being witty (i'm not coming down against silliness -- I do after all hang around lemurs and ninja monkeys, but the silliness in a 50000+ word work has to be much more witty than a single comic strip or a one paragraph post).
As for the scene not being in the book: I was actually happy it wasn't to be. That opening scene was a major hinderance to getting into the story. It was far to ridiculous for me to accept. Introduced much later, I probably could have swallowed it, having been gently introduced to evil librarians, but stand alone, it reminded me of something a dark-souled Wiggles show would present.
I'm not sure how I feel about the naming scheme. There never turned out to be a great reason for it, but at least you used it. It would have been very annoying as a single running joke, but since ALL the smedley's were prisons, the consistency helped it out a lot. I was much less bothered by it at the end than I was at the first hearin gof it. Incidentally, this is almost the same reason why I didn't grab up that "Levin Thumps" book was because of the silliness of the title. i couldn't discern any wit in it, espcially since most of the humor in the word "foo" (also used in the title of that book) is how it is used so often in programming and the book didn't appear to be informed by that familiarity. I bring this up because the title of "Alcatraz" bothered me in the same way. It's funny after you read a while in the book, but it doesn't carry any wit as a title to someone who hasn't read it. My opinion, for what it's worth. Like i said, I think my major complaint is largely disagreed with by the other posters here.
As for first person, I'll precede my opinion by pointing out that i have neither read Lemony Snicket nor seen the first person conversion.
* I don't like the interjections by The Author. only one really got a humorous response.
* However, they DID make me think quite a bit about how Cervantes presented Don Quijote, so I assume that it could be worked better. but I don't know many people in the younger audience this manuscripts targets that are remotely familiar enough with the narrative conventions of Don Quijote to resonate with it. Thus, I think it better if they were cut, rather than reworked.
* When you suggested turning it to third person, I cheered, primarily because that would remove the parts that irritated me most.
* Simply changing it to first-person and leaving the structure otherwise as is would probably come across as very weak. Yes, it WOULD be a very different book than it is now. Which is why if you go that route, it would REQUIRE a major re-write, not just a conversion. You'd lose your author's identity joke, but I wasn't too impressed with that anyway.
* I think a complete re-write, using the best lines but changing the whole structure so the story was told in first-person from Alcatraz's view would be very good.
-
If it makes any difference, I read the first person first--before I went and read the third person. Of course, I knew that it had been in third person at one point in time, so maybe that taints me anyway. Oh well.
-
Eric, if he rewrote it in first person, would that make you LIKE the book? Or would he have to remove all silliness as well? Or are you saying that all silliness is contained in the author interjections?
Karen was saying to me last night that there is a whole untapped audience out there of people who like author interjections, as witnessed by the popularity of Lemony Snicket, and it's not wrong to write something for that audience (and it might be a smart move, to separate yourself from the field). It's also not wrong to not be someone who wants to be in that audience.
Also, did you miss the given reason for the naming scheme? Or you just don't think it was a particularly good reason?
Anyway, I can also see an argument that the interjections are a gimmick, and that it's good to make a book stand out without using any gimmicks, but I'm not sure that argument necessarily needs to win (see Snicket).
-
*Chimera applauds Ookla*
Ookla--good catch of stacer on the normal Alcatraz thread (the non-spoiler one). I didn't realize that she hadn't read either version yet, and she is a good one to have as an "untainted" reader. It will be interesting to see what she has to say about first person vs. third person vs. something else entirely for this book.
-
I think if it was written in first person I would be much mroe likely to like the book. As I said, I don't object to silliness. I object to absurdity for the sake of obsurdity, without more wit attached to it.
I question how large the market is that is drawn to a book because of it's "author interjections." I don't say it doesn't exist, but I don't currently believe it's a market that could sustain a large body of work.
You seemed to have taken this personally, Ookla. I didn't say that it was "wrong" to do it or to like it. I am saying what MY reaction to it is. My reaction is not wrong either. If Brandon didn't want my feedback, he wouldn't have sent me the book. I think I have a valid point of view that can't be discounted just because others, even the majority, disagreed with me. I don't think my presentation was irrational or peevish.
I didn't see a "reason" for the name scheme. I saw it being used as part of the world, in more than just a "I wanted to name people this way" approach, but that isn't my complaint anyway. My complaint about it is that from just reading the title, it doesn't resonate with anything except the prison and surrounding literature (like Escape from). I think it would be better to call it "Sands of Rashid" and drop the "Alcatraz" part from the title entirely. Introducing the fact that Grandpa Smedly is named Levinworth earlier wouldn't hurt it in carrying off the joke either.
-
I didn't take it personally. I also already said in my post that your reaction was not wrong either. ("It's also not wrong to not be someone who wants to be in that audience.")
The market doesn't need to sustain a large body of work. But I am confident it can sustain at least two works instead of just one. Not that I'm saying that there aren't any other author interjection titles out there, but according to Karen they're hard to find. After she read Snicket, she said "I want to read more books like this," and went out and looked, but none of the books that had similar cover illustrations and packaging and marketing had what she was looking for.
The reason for the name thing is on page 155:
Bastille nodded. Â "They named mountains after themselves. Â Just like they named prisons after us."
-
yes, that's what I call much less a "reason" than a usage of it
-
E,
I do think you over-reacted just a bit to Ookla's post. He didn't seem offensive to me. It just seemed like he was asking some clarifying questions.
However, I do value your comments. In fact, I've been very thankful for this entire thread. It's given me a lot to think about. The best suggestion you made, I think, is the shortening of the title. (Or, changing it to something else.)
The "And the..." titles do seem a little worn out to me. And, if I got rid of some of the silly names on the title page (or minimized them) then perhaps I'd lose some Lemony Snicket problems as well.
This thread has, unfortunately, left me very torn about what to do. I don't think I've ever had such varied responses to one of my works.
-
I think you should go with your initial vision for the book, for the people who like it.
And then also write a totally different YA book that will satisfy the people who don't!!
Of course editors and publishers trump us.
-
Well, I have to say, as a less-experienced writer, that I am relieved that even you can't produce a perfect YA/MG manuscript on the first try in a couple of weeks. Now you shall have to rewrite--and I know you hate rewriting! BWA HA HA!!! ;)
I hope you don't give up on it, though, because I still like it and think it has potential. However, with so many conflicting opinons, you may end up having to follow your gut on this one.
-
What some people like best is often disliked most by others. And if you try to please everyone, mediocrity is often the result.
-
yeah, I just want you to consider my opinion. If you did everything I wanted, you'd be me. ANd I don't have a published novel or my own section of the message board. Wow. My life sucks.
Oh wait. Back on track: consider my opinion, but do what you feel is best for the novel. i delight more in wit, you know that. Intellectual material is more entertaining to me than most comedy. I am probably not in the largest part of the target audience.
-
I sent most of the following to Brandon already, but I thought it would be interesting to hear other people's reactions to my comments on the book.
___________________________________________
I think that there's far more good than bad in the book, and so I'm going to talk mostly about what I think needs to be polished.
Overall, I liked it -- about as well as anything I've read lately that isn't Lemony Snicket -- certainly better than several books whose cover art was designed to make me think of LS. There is obviously a market for this sort of book, if all the marketing people are trying to make their books look like they're similar to LS, even if they have nothing much really in common.
The author interjections are certainly a major part of my reaction. I laughed more at them than at the storyline which, while silly, is not often funny if you take my meaning. On the other hand, I think that the author interjections need the most work before it can be published. Several of them say the same thing, mostly about hooks, and though it makes the one that's mostly blah blah blah a bit funnier, I think that there's enough you can say about the writer's craft that you don't have to repeat yourself.
I dislike the first paragraph immensely, mostly because I couldn't tell what person you were going to be writing in, since it seems to shift through all three in the first two sentences. You just can't say, "makes A person stop and think about THEIR liveS" especially after saying, "YOU're about to get sacrificed" and just before saying, "YOU'LL have to take MY word on matters." I personally think that's what put the idea of a first person rewrite into your editor's head. Having said all that, I think that the ideas in the first paragraph are a great way to start off the book, just not quite that syntax.
I was also confused about the author's feelings toward books and libraries altogether. Does he like them? He certainly seems to when he talks about his most treasured possession. At the same time he seems to be anti books and Libraries since they're often the tools of the antagonists. I think that this can be reconciled, for instance by saying that uncorrupted books and libraries are the most wonderful things in the world, and that therefore the tainted ones are the absolute worst. For this age audience, though, I think you need to spell it out a bit more clearly.
I have lots of proofreading comments, which I won't supply unless specifically requested. I'm sure you've got people who can assist with that. I would like to mention that you use the word "Whom" too often. Sometimes, it's just plain wrong grammatically (only use it when you'd replace it with him rather than he), but even when it's grammatically correct, a person like Alcatraz probably wouldn't use it in everyday speech.
As for the names -- Why is Bastille named that? She's not a Smedry, or an Oculator. Is everybody in the Outer World named after prisons? If not, then you might want to reconsider. It's a really good name, I like it, but it didn't seem consistant with what you laid down as the reason for it. You could continue to use it if you gave her some reason to be using somebody else's family names -- for instance, you could say that members of the resistance tend to use those names, rather than just Smedries (chapter 10 by the way). Also, aren't Sing and Quentin Smedries as well? If they are, then I don't think that Bastille would be likely to refer to Levenworth by his last name alone (at the end of chapter 4)-- it would just cause confusion.
I think you should make a joke about looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I was waiting for it for a while.
-
My post was too long... here's some more
Author interjections that I particularly liked, and would be sad to lose:
Chapter three: ....Do not take his candy either...And possibly some sharks..."I am only doing this because I am a reckless boy, and am not prone to carefully considering the consequences of my actions"
Chapter four: Mothers, and dogs, and the rural south...that's because the autor made all these things up. But, you didn't know that, did you
Chapter five: ...are in no way silly, and always make sense. Rutabaga...
Chapter six: This brings us back to your mousetrap factory. How is that doing, by the way? Are revenues up? Ah, that's very pleasant.
Chapter seven: Seriously. Stay away from kittens...deep and poignant works about dead puppies..fourth generation decendants of a copy of Summa Theologica and some volume of Sweet Valley High.
Chapter eight:...a book about a boy whose dog gets killed by his mother. Twice...a perfect slice of cheesecake ...
Chapter nine: you were warned
Chapter ten: This one could go. It's the same as some earlier ones about hooks, and really does feel like slef indulgance
Chapter eleven: the line about bunnies and birthday parties is way too derivative. It just seems like copycatting. You could keep it if you made a direct nod to Mr Snicket, such as "as another author has pointed out..."
Chapter seventeen: blah blah sacrifice altars daggers sharks etc
Chapter twenty: That's all in the sequel
Last page: all of it
Bio page: in fact he's illiterate. He dedicated this novel to his potted plant, Count Duku.
You'll notice a trend in the above -- I only laughed at one of the interjcetions in chapters 9-20, and that was the one making fun of how boring they had become. I think there's certainly space there for the little side comments that make the first several stand out so well. I think that this is where you should spend the most time polishing. It seems to me that you just got bored with them and wanted to finish your story. Now you can go back and give them the touch they're lacking.
Also, I really liked the running gag about the dead dog books. Running gags are good in this genre (by the way do you notice that dogs die all the time in books, but cannot be killed in natural diaster movies?)
As for gimicks and being derivative in style -- in all of art FOREVER, people have been infuenced by what's in fashion and what seemed to work well for another artist. That's the way art works. When I read Lemony Snicket, I said to myslef, "I want more of this" and went looking for it. I read several books that certainly LOOKED on the cover like they were in a similar style, and was disappointed in several. I think that there's a market for that style right now, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with trying to fill part of it.
If you're worried about the book not standing out, imagine it without the author interjections -- it would fade into the background of all those other adolescent fantasies around. Even if this does hark back to another book, it is still a much smaller field. Also, how many "young student wizard" books were there before and after Harry Potter? There's room in the market for even copycats let alone something that's just borrowing one stylistic element, and has a highly original plot, setting, and characters.
-
yes, dead dogs and mothers was the one that made me laugh
Sing and Quentin are Smedrys. And Sing-Sing and San Quentin are prisons. It's a good question about Bastille though, I'm interested in the answer.
-
Well, Bastille is that one that said "they name prisons after us." Since she wasn't a Smedry or an Oculator, "us" must mean outer-worlders.
-
Okay, funny thing. I never actually read this series because I rarely read YA anymore, and the premise sounded a little silly to me. But when I was at my local library and found it in the "for sale" bin for 10 cents, I couldn't pass it up. Turns out they were getting rid of it because there are crayon scribbles on a number of the pages—didn't hurt readability at all, but still. Anyway, I liked to think of those scribbles as Alcatraz's notes in the margins. Or maybe his father's. :)
-
I just finished book 3, and I think Bastille is wonderful.
-
Hoorah for necrothreading. :D
I loved the books. I bet if we tried, we could probably come up with a few more Smedry's names/talents.