Page 1 of 1

Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 09, 2007, 05:00:06 AM
by neoadorable
some of the dialog was downright excellent, epecially the parts between Daniel and Charlie when he gets in car.

The characters were all well realized but i found the ending underwhelming and rushed. I'd have ended it when Daniel wakes up and heads out to the great blue yonder.

But overall this did have a spaghetti western/tarantino feel to it, and was a fast, quality read.

Lee

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 11, 2007, 02:23:58 PM
by Jaimie
I really wanted to like this one. I thought the concept had great potential. However, I thought the execution fell through.

First, I became confused with the introduction of Charlie. I thought he might have been an alias of Sid or an alternate personality. Granted, introducing a character like that would have been tricky. I'm still mulling in my mind the proper way to do it without hurting the pacing or confusing the reader.

Second, I disagree that the dialog was excellent. I thought that was the weakest link. Although the concept was Tarantinoesque, there is no comparing Mr. Gray's dialog with Tarantino's. I'm not a rabid fan of Tarantino, but the one thing he does extremely well is dialog. He knows how to insert an element of coolness and edginess. The characters here don't have that mystique about them. I think that's why the ending seems a bit blasé. The final conversation between Daniel and Sid was a missed opportunity, in my opinion.

Third, I thought Daniel's transition from avenger to psychopath a bit too jarring. Perhaps Daniel felt guilty about failing and needed to get into the mindset of a serial killer. Or maybe he experienced the adrenaline rush when he took Charlie's life. Unlike the other two killers, his impetus into crossing the line is weak. Great concept, but again, not executed very well.

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 11, 2007, 02:46:06 PM
by Robert_Moriyama
Ah, but that assumes that Daniel was sane (clinically) before he caught up with his quarry...

It might be more appropriate to wonder why Daniel was so quick to accept that the deaths of his parents were justified because they MIGHT have killed someone while DUI. Did horror at killing someone he THOUGHT was innocent tip him over the line?

Consider:
  • Daniel thought his pursuit of Sid was justified and that killing Sid would be acceptable, if not downright heroic, but
  • he ended up killing Charlie, someone he thought was innocent (hence violating his own good-guy self-image), and
  • Sid got away, so Daniel became a Bad Guy and a failure.
Becoming another Sid, but with a broader mandate (not just punishing drunk drivers) was a way to salvage his 'hero' status. (It was okay for Sid to get away if Sid was himself a hero; it was okay to kill Charlie because Charlie deserved to die; hence Daniel was still a Good Guy.)

If Bubba ever writes "Full Circle 2: The Cycle Continues", we'll have the families of Daniel's victims chasing him (and so, ad infinitum).

A parable about the futility of vengeance?

Robert M.

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 11, 2007, 03:39:17 PM
by Jaimie
Becoming another Sid, but with a broader mandate (not just punishing drunk drivers) was a way to salvage his 'hero' status. (It was okay for Sid to get away if Sid was himself a hero; it was okay to kill Charlie because Charlie deserved to die; hence Daniel was still a Good Guy.)


That broader mandate is never mentioned. That's where I struggled. In fact, to me it seemed he was killing for the sake of killing. No real reasoning behind his logic. Not saying that being a psychopath is a logical profession to begin with, but I did find it jarring.

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 11, 2007, 04:09:17 PM
by Robert_Moriyama
Becoming another Sid, but with a broader mandate (not just punishing drunk drivers) was a way to salvage his 'hero' status. (It was okay for Sid to get away if Sid was himself a hero; it was okay to kill Charlie because Charlie deserved to die; hence Daniel was still a Good Guy.)


That broader mandate is never mentioned. That's where I struggled. In fact, to me it seemed he was killing for the sake of killing. No real reasoning behind his logic. Not saying that being a psychopath is a logical profession to begin with, but I did find it jarring.


The use of the term "sanction" and the reference to "repay(ing) society for what it had done to Stearns" implied (to me, at least) that Daniel was targeting people whom he deemed to be guilty of some crime -- drinking or child molestation, most likely. Whether they were ACTUALLY guilty of anything is another question.

RM

Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

PostPosted: May 17, 2007, 01:52:42 AM
by neoadorable
but where was the full circle? is it that violence begets violence? eye for an eye results in endless vendetta? or something deeper?

Lee