*****************CONSPIRACIES spoiler************************

.... 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.

Ken, there is a connection (excluding Berzerk) made in "Conspiracies."

I'm re-reading "Conspiracies," and that is the first place where Sal Roma, aka you-know-who, makes a direct connection between Jack's scars, the Rakoshi, himself (Roma), and the Otherness. Roma and Jack are at the SESOUP convention and they have a talk in the lounge, after Roma made yet another 3-fingered sign mimicking claws being raked across Jack's chest. But even then, after hearing the conversation, Jack has trouble believing, because ... why wouldn't he? Don't we all function under Occam's Razor?


Roma: "You were scarred by a rather formidable creature, yes?"

Jack: ......".....You've seen one?"

Roma: "Seen one?" Roma grinned. "I was present when the Otherness conceived them."

They continue the conversation. Roma attempts to explain the Otherness, and Jack has difficulty comprehending the explanation and, worse, how he fits in the equation.


My point here is that while Jack has been introduced to the Otherness, has been given signs and warnings of his connectedness to it, he, because he is a rational human being, he takes a long time to come to grips with the extraordinary data and, in another manifestation of his humanness, refuses to believe that everything he encounters is connected to the Otherness.

Occam's Razor at work.

Ken, there is a connection (excluding Berzerk) made in "Conspiracies."

I'm re-reading "Conspiracies," and that is the first place where Sal Roma, aka you-know-who, makes a direct connection between Jack's scars, the Rakoshi, himself (Roma), and the Otherness.

Thanks Maggers, I stand corrected.

Ken V.

Sal Roma, aka you-know-who

Now it makes sense. Sal Roma is Voldemort.



Blake

Now is makes sense. Sal Roma is Voldemort.



Blake

Now that was funny.

EG

Now that was funny.

EG

I agree. This is an interesting thread, some fiesty posts! I'm reminded by these posts that although I'm a huge fan, I don't retain a fraction of the details some people do . That's okay though. BTW, Trish, I love your avator! cute

[SIZE=3]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.

I appreciate your saying that. My point was not to be insulting but to express my level of disappointment. Had you and I been sitting across from each other at a table, I probably would have used gentler words but would have said the same thing -- that the plotting of Hosts was not up to your usual standards.

And before I continue, let me say that I understand the thick hide. My vocation is roughly the same as your avocation, although most of my paychecks arrive for non-fiction wordsmithing and I'm frequently "behind the scenes."

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’re examining everything with a microscope. . . . (Imagine living through every minute of your life on DefCon-4 alert.)

I do keep that in mind. However, in Repairman Jack, you have already established a character who does live his life somewhere around Defcon 3. Ken has objected to my cavalier use of the term "paranoid" (although that's been Jack's self-description more than once, albeit tongue-in-cheek) so lets change that to hyper-vigilant. Especially when he knows there's a real danger out there. Knowing that there's a paranormal entity that is not only trying to killl him but which has threatened those he loves most would certainly make the character you've so vividly described highly alert for any indications of the wierd. Throughout Hosts, however, he was not only not hypervigilant but he didn't recognize indicators when they tapped him on the shoulder.

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

Absolutely true -- except that Jack has every reason to be on constant alert for things not-so-quotidian. Even a normal human being who is not a character in a thriller would be more on the alert than Jack was if they knew some powerful interdimensional entity was after their hide.

Now, my memory of the book tells me that at some point, Kate told Jack that he'd been recommended by a lady who, though a stranger, knew more about her than she should have, and further insisted that only Jack could help. Quickly skimming through the book once more, I didn't find that passage so perhaps my memory is incorrect. If so, I withdraw that particular example. But since Ken asked for others, let's look at the business with the microwave oven and how it interferred with the personality change.

There is nothing to that which, by itself would definitely make Jack think, "Aha! This looks like the Otherness at work!" But it's something which, on the face of it, makes no logical sense. I cannot accept that a man so attuned to threats against him that he zeroed right in on the Kozlowski brothers would still not even begin to wonder "Is it possible that the Otherness is involved here?" By this point in the story, there have been enough truly bizarre things that it is inconceivable for Jack to not have even a glimmer of suspicion.

Okay, that being said, let's get back to the reason I posted in the first place. I wanted to know if other fans (and I do remain a fan) had noticed some of the glitches I did and could tell me whether they continue. The range of response, on this board and elsewhere, has run the spectrum from those who totally disagree with me about these things being glitches to those who said "okay, yeah, Jack was uncharacteristically dense in that one book but it was fun anyway and it hasn't happened since." So I'll keep on buying and reading the books.

Every creator, no matter how great, has turned out some flawed gems. Most have produced a few real clinkers. There are reasons why not every Shakespeare play gets a lot of stage time and why you probably won't hear Beethoven's First Symphony down at the concert hall. And while I wouldn't compare myself with either of those two, there are certainly creations of my own that I now dearly wish I'd done differently.

Also, as a point of trivia and good will, the only RJ book that I didn't purchase with my own funds was Legacies, which was sent to me by the publisher for review. That was, alas, an error because it was not the type of book I was being paid to review at the time. After reading it, though, I did recommend it to the proper reviewer and also gave it a rave in an online reader's review. Unfortunately, due to organizational policies and politics, I had to do so as an anonymous reviewer.

Further, FWIW, you might like knowing that, despite my criticisms, the two author/subject combinations that have always lead to my instantly snapping up a book without second thought are F. Paul Wilson/Repairman Jack and Terry Prachett/Diskworld. (There used to be three, but the Elizabeth Peters/Emerson combination doesn't get quite so enthusiastic a response from me nowadays.)

A pleasure to make your acquaintance!

Steve

I first discovered Jack in Legacies, and thought him the most enjoyable, fresh and captivating adventure hero I'd seen in many a year. Then I went back to The Tomb and read the novels in order. I just finished Haunted Air and would like to get some feedback before I continue.

A big problem arose with Hosts. Jack suddenly turned as dense as a lead block. Here's a guy with a sharply-honed sense of paranoia, capable of picking up the subtlest indicators of trouble in time to turn the table on the Bad Guys (F'rinstance, the arsonist siblings from the aforementioned Hosts). Yet, despite the fact that he knows perfectly well by that novel that The Otherness is gunning for him, depite being repeatedly clubbed over the head with increasingly obvious indicators of what he was up again, he remained utterly clueless through 80% of the book.

He was significantly quicker in Haunted Air but still slow on the uptake. Things of a significance that would have put him on immediate alert if he'd been dealing with ordinary criminals don't even register when The Otherness is involved. And by now, those are the type of indicators a person of Jacks cautious nature would be most on the watch for.

I love Jack. But this sort of sloppy storytelling is beginning to really annoy me.

Before I go out and invest a few dollars and several hours in Gateways and Crisscross I'd like to get some reassurance that FPW has returned to the smarter plotting I've known him for and that Jack returns to at least reasonable competence.

Input?

C'mon, Steve--let's get righteous here. I'm certainly not about to speak for Paul, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said, "Yo, my stories are for entertainment purposes only...anything you want to read into them otherwise, that's at your own risk. Keep buyin' them, though!" But me, I think Paul does a great job of portraying a character who's the guy we'd all like to be. Be that when the grim shit comes down in NIGHTWORLD, or buying Barney a drink at Julio's. Know what I mean? BTW, welcome to the board.

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

I'd rephrase that to say that you think Ken and I miss your key issue here.

I've been reading FPW's work for over 2 decades and I don't think I've missed much.

. . .I'm certainly not about to speak for Paul, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said, "Yo, my stories are for entertainment purposes only...

Heh heh. I'm an amateur mentalist, Mike, so you don't have to sell me on the attitude of "for entertainment purposes only."

I think Paul does a great job of portraying a character who's the guy we'd all like to be. Be that when the grim shit comes down in NIGHTWORLD, or buying Barney a drink at Julio's.

I won't argue that. And even in times of regular trouble, Jack is one of the top 3 to 5 fictional characters I'd most like to have at my side if my tail was against a serious wall. I should hope that FPW won't feel slighted if I say that my number one choice would be Sir Henry Merrivale. If he knows the character, I'm sure he'll appreciate the choice.

BTW, welcome to the board.

Thank you. Good to be here.

I'd rephrase that to say that you think Ken and I miss your key issue here.

I don't object to the rephrasing but it's redundant. When I say "key issue here," I mean in this conversation, addressing the questions I raised.

I still think that Jack was uncharacteristically dense in one book, behaving with less caution and awareness than even an average person would show in his situation. Most of you disagree for one reason or another. A few fans agree but refuse to let it spoil their enjoyment of the series.

Personally, I have a major bugaboo about internal consistencies. It bothers me far more than it bothers most people when I find the rules changing for no good reason beyond convenience to the author (a sin which I have never seen FPW commit) or when I see a character acting improbably for similar reasons (something I believe I've seen happen once). But I'm also a big believer in Creators Rights, and I don't just mean copyrights. FPW created this world and he's the one who gets to say how he wants it to run. The rest of us can give opinions in places like this, but the choices are his. We get to vote only with our wallets -- we either buy the books or we don't.

So, I'm with the latter of the above-mentioned groups. Do I think he faltered on one book? Yup. Is it something terrible enough to make me stop buying? Nope, not for a one-time aberation. And the development of the character as I've seen it in Haunted Air and as you folks have hinted to me for the following books makes it unlikely that I'll have the same gripe with future novels. Therefore, I'll keep buying and keep reading.

That's the reassurance I started this topic hoping to find, so, for me, this is happy-endingsville.

As for those of you who think that it's me who's off base, well, that's why they make both chocolate and vanilla. Let's agree to disagree on this one and enjoy the rest.

[QUOTE=Ken Valentine]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.






So far, so good.






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.





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





What warning?





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





No substantial difference to what?





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





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.






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






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.






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.





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





Name one.





Close enough.





Name them.





That's a cop-out.





What makes you qualified to determine Jacks character.




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





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.








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





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, I'm with you and most of the gang who've replied to Steve 99.44% of the way--I consider Paul's work the equal of classic Heinlein. But as far as things getting through locked doors go, wouldn't the appearance of the "Tesla devices" in Jack's hotel room in CONSPIRACIES qualify?