|
Post by Rosie on May 24, 2020 20:11:48 GMT 10
A great surprise twist, or bad writing?
I accidentally triggered this debate on tumblr and I feel much more comfortable expressing my views firstly on a platform where I'm clearly an individual, and secondly where there's less chance of Pierce coming across them.
I'm in the bad writing camp. It was completely out of character, and feels like author fiat, Tunstall being the most appropriate casualty to achieve Pierce's chosen ending. I can't buy that the mildly grey but mostly morally upstanding Tunstall has come so far he has committed treason in the form of child slavery, all for a woman who has given her life over to protect the Crown. It's a smack in the face and I still feel affronted that I'm supposed to swallow it all as something Pierce had up her sleeve when it's just lazy writing.
Goodreads cited the Quirrell twist in Philosopher's Stone, and I agree with that. Snape's looming large in the foreground, and we don't notice all the careful groundwork being laid for Quirrell. In the same way, I think we're supposed to be suspicious of Farmer when Tunstall unveils the Voldemort on the back of his skull. It doesn't work for me. Either this is beyond Pierce's capability as a writer, or she ran out of steam.
Which side of the fence are you on? I really feel this is a marmite plot point.
|
|
|
Post by Kypriotha on May 25, 2020 9:13:20 GMT 10
I sort of straddle 2 camps in this, in that (in theory) I don't mind it as a plot twist, but I also think it was poorly executed.
I don't mind a character like Tunstall committing a betrayal like this. At some point after reading Mastiff, I went back and re-read the whole series more critically, looking for clues or motivations to explain Tunstall's actions. Unfortunately, I've since lost my notes of this, but in general, I attributed his actions to a few main factors - his love of Sabine and feeling he wasn't good enough for her, class/money issues, less loyalty to the Crown due to the discrimination against his people/culture, and his injury in Bloodhound making him realise he was getting older and couldn't do Dog work forever and needed a plan for the future.
I'm okay with the fact that Sabine didn't have the same level of concern about the class differences - I feel like that is true to real life, where the person with the perceived "defect" or "issue" sees it as more of a problem than the other person, particularly if the other person is in a position of privilege. I can even buy Tunstall not thinking through how Sabine, who was honourable and loyal to the Crown, would not regard his actions in the same way, because people make stupid mistakes.
However, in general, I think it requires a fairly generous reading of the text to believe all these factors as canon motivators for Tunstall's eventual betrayal. It requires a fair bit of heavy lifting on the part of the reader, especially with things like his cultural background, because they are not dealt with thoroughly in the text. I think that one in particular could have been a very interesting motivator, if it was properly explored, but it wasn't.
For me, that's where the poor execution comes up. I agree with the option put forward by Rosie in that I think this particularly plot was beyond Pierce's capability as a writer. I also suspect that this wasn't planned until she was writing Mastiff and so she wasn't able to do the necessary foreshadowing needed to execute it properly. A plot point like this cannot be done in just one book. It needs proper groundwork and not just a reader applying a generous interpretation to make it work.
So while, overall, I don't mind it to the extent that it doesn't mar my enjoyment of Mastiff or the overall series, which I know it does for some people, I think it could have been a lot better written and executed than what it was.
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on May 25, 2020 15:55:35 GMT 10
Well, I don’t mind it being Tunstall, I just mind the way it’s Tunstall. As you say, all the work is being done by the reader. I see that as bad writing - I believe you should be able to go back and find all the moments that point to this which aren’t ‘man who grows flowers makes fun of other man’s embroidery skills’, because whilst that’s unimpressive behaviour, it’s not indicative on its own of someone who is capable of murdering children. I agree there should have been signs throughout the series but also don’t really feel like we get foreshadowing in Mastiff itself? And I’m still annoyed that he is a jerk afterwards, when he returns as a pigeon, but still achieves enough equilibrium to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Kypriotha on May 26, 2020 8:16:10 GMT 10
That's an interesting point you raise, because I think you're right - there's not enough foreshadowing in Mastiff itself. It really makes me wish I had my notes on this topic, because I think that if you weighted it for how much Tunstall is present in Mastiff vs how much Tunstall is present in Bloodhound, there might actually be more clues in Bloodhound. Which, since I don't think this was planned until after Bloodhound was written, I should really stop calling clues, because they can't be. But I think, for me, Bloodhound was what set up Tunstall's underlying anxiety? insecurity? about his relationship with Sabine and the class/wealth divide, which I think is a big factor in his accepting the offer the kidnappers make.
Of course, I still accept that, just because I don't mind the analytical exercise of going back through the series to find things to fit the ending, it doesn't overcome the deficiencies in the writing of actually laying the groundwork and making it more believable. I thought of a good analogy/comparison last night, but I didn't write it down and of course I have forgotten it now...
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on May 27, 2020 1:13:36 GMT 10
I actually did read Mastiff knowing what would happen (I spoiled myself so I could set up threads on here), and I felt like I spent the whole book waiting for her to convince me he was a villain.
|
|
|
Post by Kypriotha on May 27, 2020 7:22:49 GMT 10
Do you think that changed how you read the book and viewed the betrayal? I know I found Star Wars Episode III underwhelming because I knew the ending - Anakin became Darth Vader - and I didn't feel like it was built up properly in the film. I'll never know if I would have felt the same if I didn't know the outcome.
Of course, having an unexpected surprise come completely out of left field is also a disappointing read - and sometimes feels like a bigger betrayal as a reader. So maybe in this case it wouldn't have mattered if you knew or didn't know.
Also I remembered what I thought about the other day - it was something to do with Game of Thrones and shock value and changes in story telling methods. I'll try to remember more details.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jun 18, 2020 22:21:15 GMT 10
So... my perspective is really strange on this one, because I read half the book before Tammy had finished it (because I was hired to help her sort out some time-disparities, so she sent me everything she had written that far). And a lot of things were changed from the version I read to the one that was published, and the changes made sense. But nothing specific with Tunstall was changed, and if you had told me - when I was stuck in the middle of the book for two years, waiting for the second half, that Tunstall was going to betray them, I would've laughed.
When I read the final version, I was pretty unhappy with the betrayal because - as Rosie has outlined - there wasn't a whiff of foreshadowing. His rationale isn't supported by his behavior, and I feel it would've been better if we would've seen inklings of his motivation or multiple reasons for doing what he did. It's just... shoddy writing.
|
|