Steve, have you already read the rest of the Adversary Cycle? If so, that may muddle your opinion a bit since you know "more" than Jack does. I'm not sure your first example works, since much of Jack's business arrives by way of anonymous referral.

I disagree that Jack acts dense, EXCEPT in the case of Gia being pregnant. I think that's the only time I had something figured out long before Jack did!

Lisa

I have a slightly different take on this, because like you Steve, my first exposure to Jack was the same as you: Legacies. Then after reading The Tomb, I read Conspiracies, and then went to the Advesary series.
Legacies has a very different feel than the other books, so it was very difficult for me to adjust to the other books at first.
Secondly, Nightworld shows Jack knowing a lot less then he knows at the point of CrissCross. FPW has said that he is likely going to re write it to update these inconsistencies. So, what you have is a Jack that is smarter in one series than he is in the other. Don't use one to judge the other.
Third, yes Jack is a little clueless at times. I pointed out in the maria Roselli thread about how he missed the Sara Lom clue. However, I like this in jack. Why? Well, does any one else remember the TV show 'Stingray'? jack compares himself to the equalizer, but that is wrong, imo. I believe he is much more like Stingray than he is like the Equalizer. The problem is that Stingray and characters like him are almost supermen. They never get hurt, and even if they make a mistake, all will be corrected in sixty minutes. That is OK for TV, but it doesn't work in real life. Real people make mistakes. That makes jack much much more real to me. I have to admit to being shocked (albeit pleasantly shocked) when Jack got hurt so bad at the end of Legacies. I was afraid that he would be one of these cartoonish superheor TV type characters. He isn't. He's real. he doesn't fight 3 guys at once, even when they are breaking into julio's car, because in real life, 1 on 3 just doesn't work. I like that.

Nobody else can really tell you whether or not to spend that money and those hours on Gateways and Crisscross. I was told that Shrek 2 sucked, so I didn't waste my money. Now that I've seen it, I found it very enjoyable. I personally loved Gateways and Crisscross. I love Jack, flaws and all. However, I have thoroughly enjoyed every FPW book that I've read. It's really your call. You can't rely on someone else's "opinion" when it's YOUR money that's involved. If you don't like them, put 'em on ebay. You'll get at least a partial refund.
Oh, BTW, welcome!
Trish

Early on, when Jack first talks to Kate on the phone, he learns that she got his number from a strange woman who insisted that only he could help. Does that trigger any alarms for you?

No, it doesn't. We know that Birks refers Jack to Kusum in The Tomb. How did Birks find out about Jack? We know that Gia refers Jack to Alicia in Legacies. We know that Melanie refers Jack to her husband in Conspiracies. We know that Alicia refers Jack to Nadia in All The Rage. There are many other people who call Jack, and we don't find out how they come to learn of him. Why should The Russian lady with the dog be so terribly unusual? We don't discover how the man who hired Jack in Haunted Air learns of Jacks existence until the very end of the book.

Considering how much it's like the way Jack got involved in Conspiracies, it should have put him on alert immediately. It didn't, though. Now that's out of character.

Sorry. I've read the books numerous times and I don't see any comparison at all between Conspiracies and Hosts -- null program.

Next, he discovers that his sister's problem involves Jeanette who, after undergoing experimental chemical treatment, suffers a severe change in personality. Do the parallels from All the Rage even cross his mind? Nope! Not even after he learns that the medicinal strain used underwent a mysterious mutation.

Perhaps you should read the book again -- both of them in fact. There is no parallel between them. The "street drug" in ATR went inert peridocally, while there is a contaminant in the medication used in Hosts. In Hosts, Jack learns of the mutation you mention right at the end. Oh, he had a fever-dream about it, but would you try to connect a dream with reality?

More than halfway through the book, when the Russian lady arrives at his bedside with dire warnings, despite everything else, he blows the whole thing off as a dream.

Yep, she arrives at his side while he is semi-delirious, having somehow passed through a locked third-story apartment door that is virtually as strong as a vault -- and mysteriously disappears again. No sounds of opening or closing doors -- poof, she's there, she gives him a drink, makes some cryptic remarks, and poof she's gone again taking Susans dog with her. How strange that these events should have a dream-like quality to someone with a high fever.

Ken V.

Welcome to the board, saglaser.

It's nice to see someone with a dissenting opinion who doesn't get bullied easily. Well thought out post. I hope you stick around.

Do you think you're being bullied Jim?


Ken V.

Sorry to disappoint you. And if you consider this insulting, you should go learn the difference between criticism and insult.

You said in your original post, "... this sort of sloppy storytelling is really beginning to annoy me." That's not insulting?

FPW is a terrific writer and storyteller. Due to the quality of most of his work, I've come to hold him to a very high standard.

Pity you don't hold yourself to a very high standard.

So far, I've had only one major and one minor disappointment. And if you think that being a fan means uncritical acceptance, you do no favors to either yourself or FPW.

Why don't you go out and get laid, then come back and talk to me when you're feeling better.

Ken V.

Maggers and Ken both raise some valid points, but I think you both miss the key issue here:

Maggers:

I don't think it would be out of the ordinary at all for a new client to say that only Jack could help.

Ken:

There are many other people who call Jack, and we don't find out how they come to learn of him. Why should The Russian lady with the dog be so terribly unusual?

The Russian lady is unusual because it wasn't somebody passing on a reference to a friend or acquaintance. This was somebody who was a total stranger to Kate, who clearly knew more about Kate than she should have known. That would be curious under any circumstances.

Now remember, we are not talking about how ordinary people would react and what they would find usual or unusual. We're talking about Jack. Jack spends his life on the alert for danger. If, in the course of events, he were to learn that Mad Mike Murphy, ringleader of a team of serial-killer ventriloquists, was after his head, he would be on the alert for anything that might indicate danger. Did that guy in the grocery line say "thank you" without moving his lips? Is that woman carrying overnight luggage or a dummy case? Jack would be watching for that stuff and would check out anything that made him suspicious. That is a fundamental part of his being.

However, by Hosts he knows that an entity with paranormal abilities is trying to kill him. He should be watching for any parallels to known dangers. He isn't! And in this situation, that warning to his sister should be a red flag. Maybe not enough to make him automatically assume an Otherness plot, but more than enough to make him pay close attention. He doesn't even do that.

Maggers:

I see it as evidence of Jack's simply being human. Why would he connect everything to the Otherness.

Ken

There is no parallel between them. The "street drug" in ATR went inert peridocally, while there is a contaminant in the medication used in Hosts. In Hosts, Jack learns of the mutation you mention right at the end.

Ken, you're right about the mutation. It's been several months since I read Hosts and my memory slipped on details. In the beginning, he's aware of only a contaminant. But that makes no substantial difference.

Although the drugs involved in the two stories are totally different, Jack doesn't know that. the does know that the Otherness has already operated once through a drug that resulted in extreme personality changes. Again, if that alone wouldn't make him assume the Otherness is involved -- and Maggers is right in saying that it, by itself, probably should not -- it is something that should alert his paranoid mind to the possibility. especially following his sister's encounter with the myserious Russian lady. By now, he should definitely be looking for evidence of the Otherness, even if he's not sure its involved.

Maggers:

Jack just thinks he's an ordinary pirate-like character, living on the fringes of society, just outside the law. He still looks to earthly reasons for explanations.

Except that he ALSO knows that there is something outside our usual physical laws that wants him dead. Yet he ignores that fact much of the time. Is that really in character? I'd say no.

Ken:

Yep, she arrives at his side while he is semi-delirious, having somehow passed through a locked third-story apartment door that is virtually as strong as a vault -- and mysteriously disappears again. No sounds of opening or closing doors -- poof, she's there, she gives him a drink, makes some cryptic remarks, and poof she's gone again taking Susans dog with her. How strange that these events should have a dream-like quality to someone with a high fever.

Again, this view would make sense if it were an isolated incident, but you're overlooking both character and context. Jack is now perfectly aware that things can get through locked doors. He has even had prophetic dreams. And at this point, he's not yet semi-delirious but merely feverish. Furthermore, this event happens after the two red flags I've already discussed plus at least one or two more. No, I don't recall what they are any longer and I'm not going to invest the time in going through the book page by page to seek them out. But even with just those two, this is enough to put Jack on full-blown alert. He might conceivably wonder whether it was only a dream, but he would definitely be acting as if it might not be. That is his character.

Ken:

You said in your original post, "... this sort of sloppy storytelling is really beginning to annoy me." That's not insulting?

That is critical. I cited specific examples of what I consider sloppy storytelling and I labelled them as such. And I told what effect it had on me. Not sugar-coated, certainly, and while I probably could have couched the opinion in more diplomatic terms, it is not an insult. An insult is a personal attack or at the very least a put-down not backed up by reasoned argument. For example, something along the lines of "...maybe you ought to go back to Bugs Bunny cartoons," could, in certain contexts, be considered an insult minimalizing the work of of Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Mel Blanc, Stan Freberg and the rest of the brillliant crew that worked on those animations.

Ken again:

Pity you don't hold yourself to a very high standard.

You think? Tell you what, you're free to criticize my professional work all you like. Back it with facts, please. Otherwise, you're 40-some years too old for the sort of Jr. High snipefighting that this, and especially your following, comment exemplifies. And I'm 30-some years too old treat it seriously. If you want to debate differing views on storytelling in general and RJ in specific, I'll be glad to do it and treat your opinions with respect, even if I disagree. Just leave the personal crap to the immature. This is the one and only response I'll make to it.

Oh, and BTW, I have not read the Adversary Cycle, so whatever happens in those stories has no influence on my opinions. I'm dealing with the Jack stories as a stand-alone series, although I'm well aware of the interrelationship.

That being said, I'll stir the pot a bit more by saying that I wish FPW would write a few Jack stories that are not part of the Otherness arc. I know he's suggested the possibility of some prequel stories along those lines, but as others have pointed out within this discussion, Jack has taken on non-Otherness jobs in between the novels. Surely some of those are tales worth telling. And personally, I think that Jack as a character shines brightest when he's dealing with human problems, as in Legacies. It is in these situations were his uniqueness as a character stands in its best light as we see his moral sense, ingenuity, wit and humanity come through.

Ken:
The Russian lady is unusual because it wasn't somebody passing on a reference to a friend or acquaintance. This was somebody who was a total stranger to Kate, who clearly knew more about Kate than she should have known. That would be curious under any circumstances.

You really should read the book again. Kate is upset, and someone who sees this gives her a card with Jacks name and phone number on it. The Russian lady tells her that Jack is the only one who can help. Kate phones Jack and tells him of her problem. So far it sounds like a regular fix-it.

Now remember, we are not talking about how ordinary people would react and what they would find usual or unusual. We're talking about Jack. Jack spends his life on the alert for danger. If, in the course of events, he were to learn that Mad Mike Murphy, ringleader of a team of serial-killer ventriloquists, was after his head, he would be on the alert for anything that might indicate danger. Did that guy in the grocery line say "thank you" without moving his lips? Is that woman carrying overnight luggage or a dummy case? Jack would be watching for that stuff and would check out anything that made him suspicious. That is a fundamental part of his being.

So far, so good.

However, by Hosts he knows that an entity with paranormal abilities is trying to kill him.

True, but he doesn't know what those abilities are. So, how can he link what seems to be some sort of religious cult with the Otherness? Also, he is distracted by Sandy Palmers attempts to bring him into the open.

He should be watching for any parallels to known dangers.

That's just it, there aren't any parallels. This is something completely new.

He isn't! And in this situation, that warning to his sister should be a red flag.

What warning?

Maybe not enough to make him automatically assume an Otherness plot, but more than enough to make him pay close attention. He doesn't even do that.

As I said, he's at the very least distracted by the serious threat of Sandy Palmer.

Ken, you're right about the mutation. It's been several months since I read Hosts and my memory slipped on details. In the beginning, he's aware of only a contaminant. But that makes no substantial difference.

No substantial difference to what?

Although the drugs involved in the two stories are totally different, Jack doesn't know that.

A street drug versus a cancer treatment? You think Jack would imagine they are the same?!?

the does know that the Otherness has already operated once through a drug that resulted in extreme personality changes.

Actually, he doesn't. He knows of the Rakoshi, he knows of Scarlip and Berzerk, but he so far doesn't have a link between the Rakoshi, Berzerk and the Otherness.

Again, if that alone wouldn't make him assume the Otherness is involved -- and Maggers is right in saying that it, by itself, probably should not -- it is something that should alert his paranoid mind to the possibility.

Since when is Jack paranoid? Suspicious, yes, but paranoid?

especially following his sister's encounter with the myserious Russian lady. By now, he should definitely be looking for evidence of the Otherness, even if he's not sure its involved.

Why?! He has had one known contact with the Otherness. So now everything is supposed to be Otherness-related? If that were the case, then he truly would be paranoid, i.e., mentally ill.

Except that he ALSO knows that there is something outside our usual physical laws that wants him dead. Yet he ignores that fact much of the time. Is that really in character? I'd say no.

What starts out looking like an ordinary fix-it turns into an Otherness-related event. Your accusation that he is ignoring it is absurd.

As the reader, you have a viewpoint that Jack does not possess. You can see the actions of all the characters, hear their words, and read their thoughts. Jack can't do that. A lot of things are happening within a very short period of time. Jack is portrayed as a human being, not some caped super-hero with X-ray vision.

Again, this view would make sense if it were an isolated incident, but you're overlooking both character and context. Jack is now perfectly aware that things can get through locked doors.

What things? What previous experience has he had with things getting through locked doors?

He has even had prophetic dreams.

Name one.

And at this point, he's not yet semi-delirious but merely feverish.

Close enough.

Furthermore, this event happens after the two red flags I've already discussed plus at least one or two more.

Name them.

No, I don't recall what they are any longer and I'm not going to invest the time in going through the book page by page to seek them out.

That's a cop-out.

But even with just those two, this is enough to put Jack on full-blown alert. He might conceivably wonder whether it was only a dream, but he would definitely be acting as if it might not be. That is his character.

What makes you qualified to determine Jacks character.

Ken:
That is critical. I cited specific examples of what I consider sloppy storytelling and I labelled them as such. And I told what effect it had on me. Not sugar-coated, certainly, and while I probably could have couched the opinion in more diplomatic terms, it is not an insult.

You may not have intended it as an insult, but an insult it was.

An insult is a personal attack or at the very least a put-down not backed up by reasoned argument.

EXACTLY! "Sloppy storytelling" is a put-down. And though your argument may be reasoned in your mind, you have certainly not come up with any evidence to lead me to think that you know what you are talking about.

For example, something along the lines of "...maybe you ought to go back to Bugs Bunny cartoons," could, in certain contexts, be considered an insult minimalizing the work of of Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Mel Blanc, Stan Freberg and the rest of the brillliant crew that worked on those animations.

Actually, I thought Bugs Bunny cartoons were something you could actually understand.

Ken again: You think? Tell you what, you're free to criticize my professional work all you like. Back it with facts, please.

Being as you haven't stated what your professional work IS, I can only wonder. Are you a "Critic?" One of those people who complains about someone else's creations, but can't actually create anything themselves?

Enlighten me.

Ken V.

First off, I was not insulted. Some of the remarks you (Steve) made in the opening post could be considered a tad belligerent and more than a tad disingenuous, but I have a thick hide. (A result, I suppose, of all the rejections before selling my first story.) This forum was designed to trade ideas and opinions, not kiss my butt, and I like the spirited discussion you’ve provoked.

The problem -- and a number of replies have come close to it –- is confusing character mindset with reader mindset.

As the reader of a mystery-thriller, you open the cover knowing that this isn’t going to be Remembrance of Things Past. You know you’re going to encounter significant events, so you’re examining everything with a microscope.

How many times a day do you misplace something, only to find it later? That’s real life. In a thriller-mystery, however, the reader mindset endows the missing object with all sorts of portent.

If I mention Jack passing a lady walking a dog -- wham -- your antennae go up and you’re on DefCon-4 alert. But in Jack’s life it’s the 97th woman with a dog he’s passed that day.

(Imagine living through every minute of your life on DefCon-4 alert.)

It's like finding a locked door in an RPG game. In real life you come across thousands and thousands of locked doors. But because you’re in reader/player mindset, you know that door was put there by the game designer and locked for a reason. So you go looking for a key or a way to break it down. Do you do that with every locked door you encounter in real life?

Reader mindset makes you suspicious of everything. But in the character’s mindset he’s simply experiencing his quotidian existence.

You’re not smarter than the character (who doesn't know he's in a thriller), you simply know that something has been mentioned for a reason – especially in my bare-bones approach to storytelling.