The Sword and Laser discussion

Since I happened to already had this one preinstalled on my kindle and have recently finished reading my last book, I'm now 25% through The Rook. It's on the whole a pretty enjoyable supernatural espionage ... adventure (?), but there's one discussion point I want to throw out.

When I started reading, I first thought it was a body-swap scenario. After a bit, it became clear that no, it was in fact the amnesia plot that was in play, but with a rather novel twist. A further bit on, another thought struck me. "Hang on" it said, "this is just an sneaky way to legitimise a massive infodump, isn't it!"
Well, the thought isn't wrong; it's not often I read so front-loaded with straight-up exposition. On the other hand, the body-swap/amnesia setup paired with the stark contrast between the old and new personalities does provide potential for a lot of exciting character interaction.
So perhaps perhaps, The b/rook might just pull it off!

What makes the amnesia scenario used here fresh for me is that the story is not about the past and figuring out who the character was. All the necessary background information is being provided by a very meticulously prepared past self up front.
I also quite like that the new identity does not come with a sudden shift in allegiance or morals, but the point of contrast being a very different personality.

Yes, the preparation is the neat twist that makes this something other than "The Laundy files meets Jason Bourne". It's a bit heavy-handed, but I have to admit it's a ... cleaner way to introduce the reader to the secret world than having the protagonist narrating it, although there are definitely good ways of doing that too.
Also, it's always fun to see stories where the protagonists shake the smug confidence of previously superior (not quite) antagonists.

Yes, the interactions cause the characters around her to be more unbalanced than Myfanwy because of her changes. This is much more interesting and satisfying to me than if she were simply clueless in every situation trying to muddle through without being too obvious.

I enjoyed it as a variant on info dumping. Every author has to figure out some way of letting the reader know what the world is like, and this was an interesting twist on the been-there-done-that amnesiac-discovers-the-world route. It could have been cliche, but I'm going with clever on this one.

I hate infodumps. It's the reason I gave up on The Golem and the Jinni, and it's the reason I've given up on The Rook.

I don't remember infodumps in TGATJ.
Unless you define backstory as infodump :-? Which I don't think it is.

You have to have some exposition, especially in Book 1 of a series.

I liked the "past Myf" teaching "present Myf" way of world building.

This book dumps info like a truck, truck, truck. A lot of the letters were totally irrelevant to the plot and could have easily been cut. I was actually happy when I found out that the last 10% of the book was a Stiletto preview, meant I was done sooner.

Huh, I don't view the letters as infodumps at all. Remember, this incarnation of Myfawny knows nothing about the Checquy at all so it's not believable that, without some background information. It also gives us (especially later in the book) some view of the first Myfawny who KNOWS she's going to basically die.

As for not having anything to do with the story... I get that some of you want a nice linear plot that moves from action piece to action piece. Some of us want more than that.

@Rick: My point is, they're kind of both. The letters are a literary device that serves several purposes; they introduce Myfawnwy to the Checquy and give her the tools to survive, they provide insight into the character of Thomas, and they also present the setting to the reader. On a meta-literary level, they absolutely are infodumps short-circuiting the need to weave the explosition into the narrative, but are they justified within the narrative? I'm leaning towards yes.

I think we're using info dump slightly differently. I hear the term as a pejorative where it's meant as something like "this is a dump of information that could be done as part of the story but wasnt" and I don't think that definition works here. The new Myfawny can't trust anyone in the Checquy so she can't ask others about who some people are, procedures, etc. The old Myfawny is aware that she will lose her memories so she wants to give her new self enough information to survive.

Given that, I don't see how you could do this in another fashion and have Myfawny credibly survive in the Checquy without being discovered.

Rick wrote: " I get that some of you want a nice linear plot that moves from action piece to action piece. Some of us want more than that."

So you don't mind that an author takes up a reader's time to set up his world for later books. That is fine, but if I don't like an author's first book I am certainly not reading the second, so that worldbuilding is wasted.

And again, that's fine. I thought the book moved just fine. But as I said in the announce thread, sometimes it's about your frame of mind too (or at least it is for me). I bounced off this a couple of other times.

PS: I'm curious... for those of you who felt this was infodumpy in the pejorative meaning of that word (i.e. it actively harmed your enjoyment of the book), how else would you have written the basic story? I don't mean details but assume this is the bare bones of the story:

Myfawny wakes up with no memory, surrounded by dead people. She finds a letter from herself telling her that her memory has been wiped and laying out the basics that the first 2 letters give her in the book. Events proceed more or less as they do in the book through the events in the bank that induced her to choose to stay and figure things out. Now... without the device of the letters... how do you outline the rest of the story?

Remember, everything else is the same, so she still can't trust anyone, she still has to make people who've worked with her for a long time not suspect that she lost her memory and really has no clue about what the Checquy is or any details of her job or the people at it.

I'm genuinely curious because I can't think of another way offhand.

The letters were fine as a narrative device. Over-use was the problem. We needed to know how the Checquy operated for this story. We did not need to know about vampires, dragons, or the American Checquy. The information about many of her co-workers could have been delivered more naturally instead of spoon-fed to us.

Also, in terms of the OP's post: "clever or cliched"? The letters were a moderately clever setup to one of the most cliched plot points imaginable: a case of explosive amnesia! In a supernatural law enforcement bureau in London! Forgive me if I'm not agog over the creativity here.

Tassie Dave wrote: "I don't remember infodumps in TGATJ.
Unless you define backstory as infodump :-? Which I don't think it is.

You have to have some exposition, especially in Book 1 of a series.

I liked the "past ..."
Like the letters here, a good portion of the beginning (and when I say beginning I really mean the first third) of TGATJ was backstory info. It's still info, dumped on my head.

How much of it could be so easily explained as 'She knew from Myfawny's letters that... X Y Z', rather than having to read the letters with digressions and tangents. I honestly have no interest in how the dead character came to be recruited to the X-Men.

To me this isn't "infodump" it is a different way of presenting the plot, world and characters.

O'Mally could have written this an a chronologically linear work with all the same information. He chose to go for the "letters to my future self" route instead. I, personally, liked the extra information.

Now "Moby Dick", that is full of "infodump" about mind-numbingly boring details on whaling, that you never wanted to know about ;-)

I feel like perhaps we have become too sensitive towards "exposition" and "infodumps". I seem to see negative reactions towards these quite frequently now. But when I think about what makes my favorite books so rich and rewarding is how fleshed out and detailed the worlds are created.

While there are certainly better and worse ways to present this information, I usually do want to get it somehow.

I suppose the author could instead set up a wiki for the world and then just expect the readers to look things up as needed. Come to think of it that could've been Thomas' solution instead of the letters for Myfanwy as well. But the letters tell us more than just the facts about the Checquy. They tell us a lot about Thomas' personality and fears, knowing that she's essentially going to die soon and not being able to talk to anybody about it.

There is a reason the letters at time seemed to be infodumps, that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to be for the plot. They are Thomas's attempt to get Myfawny up to speed on everything she needs to know. I did like how you see some of the journey that Thomas went through dealing with the fact that she was going to die, but had an opportunity be "reborn" and the efforts she put toward preparing for her "rebirth".

I also thought it was a great idea for the author to introduce the binder. After that point, the letters became less of an infodump and more of a parallel plot. The binder entries were infodumps, but they were very relevant and again served the plot well.

I also loved the little detail where both Thomas and Myfanwy would pick the same name if they were going to start a new life on the run.

Rick wrote: "PS: I'm curious... for those of you who felt this was infodumpy in the pejorative meaning of that word (i.e. it actively harmed your enjoyment of the book), how else would you have written the basic story?"
Well, I'm not really hating the letter device, though I'll leave final judgement on how well they work until I've finished the book, but just to play devil's advocate for a bit:

Sure, the way the situation is set up, you are absolutely right. Without the letters and the resources from her past self, Myfanwy would be completely lost, and most likely completely dead soon after. However, to argue that this proves the letters essential can be accused of circular reasoning; "this is the way the story has to work because this is the way the story works"
Another question is what came first, world or character?
If the author started out with an idea for a setting, the letters could have been an answer to the problem of how to introduce the reader to the secret world. If on the other hand the story sprang from the idea of a woman standing in the rain, surrounded by dead people and with no memory of herself, they answer the question of "how is she going to get out of this?"
In reality, it's probably a bit of both, but in any case the letters form the solution to a puzzle, just two different puzzles.

I feel the act of the info dump is done to near perfection . As for Moby Dick, I know that when presented with the scenario of a dead whale in the Great Trump Dystopia I will know what to do.

Fredrik wrote: "However, to argue that this proves the letters essential can be accused of circular reasoning; "this is the way the story has to work because this is the way the story works..."

And your argument is "If the story were a different story, the letters wouldn't be needed." No shit.

Sorry but criticism of the "if the story were different" variety holds no water with me. I can criticize almost any story by saying that the author wouldn't have had to do X (the thing I don't like) if only they were telling a different story. However, I think it's arrogant in the extreme to tell the author that they shouldn't tell the story that they want to tell because you, the reader, don't like X about how their story needs to be told.

Given that the author wanted to tell a story where someone has lost their memory but is NOT trying to regain it and the amnesiac version has to pass themselves off as if nothing had happened well enough to make their survival credible... HOW ELSE would you do it? Some of the information in the letters could be conveyed to the reader via other means (another viewpoint, a 3rd party omniscient interlude, etc) but some of that information needs to be know my Myfawny 2.0... which neither of those mechanisms does.

As for Brendan's point on originality.... If you only read truly original fiction, you aren't going to be reading a lot in or out of the SFF genre.

Calm down, dude, I'm not disagreeing with you; I've already explained how I think the letters do serve the story. And I'm not trying to tell the author how to write his story either. I'm just conducting a thought experiment, positing that the amnesia plot is one way to tell a story within and about this world, striking two birds with one stone by simultaneously expositing to the protagonist and the reader.

I'm about 80% through and I saw the amnesia plot as a device to inform the reader, but also as a theme that resonated with me. Mainly delivered through the letters that read more and more as journal entries addressed to someone as the book goes on, rather than info dumps (which became the binder). It allowed a contrast between the new and old Myfanwy's, where the newer Myfanwy was more assertive and confident (and a corporate badass), and the timidity of the old Myfanwy was pretty much chalked up to her past experiences (or her memories of them).

I am a female just starting out in the construction industry as an architect, where the construction industry is very male driven, where there are stereotypes and prejudices about pretty much every profession, including architects, and I don't have a lot of experience having only started working in Jan after finishing uni. I feel a lot of pressure to conduct myself in a way, so as to be taken seriously but still also trying to learn.

I read it as an exaggerated take on breaking through any insecurities we put on ourselves. Where mine is based on my perceptions and social conditioning, and Myfanwy's is on her fear of her powers and the trauma of being separated from her family. So to me the amnesiac plot is clever.

ps. example of insecurities: I just went through and deleted out some lines where I was putting in apologetic, non-confrontational disclaimers about how this was only my opinion, which it is, but come on, let's be assertive and confident (and a badass).

I don't see the letters as info dumps because they reveal so much about the personality of the old Myfanwy. I love the contrast between the old Myfanwy and the new and I'm not sure how such a thing could be revealed otherwise without people just plain saying they were different. I like the way the new Myfanwy assertively claims her own identity. She doesn't attempt to reclaim the person she was, and this is refreshing. Few things can be original these days, and this book is not the exception but, to me, it still feels fresh.

I agree that it's compelling how Myfanwy accepts that she is a new person but is very much interested in getting to know the person that used to inhabit her body.
And before that the old Myfanwy accepts that she as a person will cease to exist and hopes a new person will emerge, for whom she works very hard to help transition into her life. Even going so far as to giving her a choice of leaving it all behind and starting new. Neither of them are trying to revive old Myfanwy.

Sarah wrote: "I'm about 80% through and I saw the amnesia plot as a device to inform the reader, but also as a theme that resonated with me.
(...)
I read it as an exaggerated take on breaking through any insecurities we put on ourselves. Where mine is based on my perceptions and social conditioning, and Myfanwy's is on her fear of her powers and the trauma of being separated from her family. So to me the amnesiac plot is clever."

I hadn't (at least not conciously) considered that perspective, but it makes a lot of sense!

I very much enjoyed the entire book and I thought the letters were extremely well done, mostly because O'Malley did an excellent job with giving us original Myfanwy's voice and personality, and making her letters entertaining, and they are giving us info that helps move the plot and worldbuild - so they are doing multiple things, and doing each of those things well, IMO.

I liked the letters, although some could be cut, like one of the first one's where Myfanwy talks about a random adventure she had that day, cutting out the power in Liverpool.

I thought where the book really suffers though is the world building outside of the letters. It strays into RPG territory sometimes, notably the first time Myfanwy 2.0 encounters steffie:

"What did you mean about my powers not being a secret?"
Huge info dump
"I'd like to hear your take on my potential."
Even bigger info dump

Brendan wrote: "The letters were fine as a narrative device. Over-use was the problem. We needed to know how the Checquy operated for this story. We did not need to know about vampires, dragons, or the American Ch..."

I wondered if anyone else felt the letters were a little, well, tropey.

Not just overuse, but they ultimately felt grafted (har har) rather than organic. The first couple of letters made sense -- here's a previous self trying to get as much info to the new Myfanwy as quickly & efficiently as possible -- but they quickly became little bits of story, indistinguishable from the tone of the balance of the book that wasn't in italics.

That is, why the narrative turn, especially after she'd talked with the duck? If I'm about to "die" and want to tell as much about my life to someone as possible, I doubt there's going to be a ton of dialog like there was in some of these, like the letter about the Xmas party, especially after I start believing I have less than a month to "live".

It got to the point I wondered if the book wasn't originally written differently, and then the letter idea hit, and the parts from the original draft that were pre-memory wipe were as efficiently as possible turned into letters as O'Malley could do it.

To make the letters feel earned, Old Myf should've explained why she was writing such story-like letters -- New Myf was her only friend, the only person OM could reveal these thoughts to, whatever. Reasonable excuses exist, but O'Malley didn't use them. And New Myf should have struck out looking for a few topics she really needed to know (not just said she didn't run across a topic in the letters) to show OM didn't do such a great job covering everything. That is, in spite of OM's wonderful organization, her penchant for narrative was a real character flaw, and the digressions cost her.

As is, the letters were too pat, too easily integrated with and called for by the narrative as they were introduced, too perfectly crafted for exactly the points in the story where they were revealed. I half expected OM to still be in NW's head somewhere (it would explain the powers used for not just the initial escapes in the book, but the cube's collapse as well) and even that OM might've made herself forget to escape identification or something similar. That is, the letters are so perfectly integrated into the plot, so not simply efficient infodumps, so, well, conventional flashbacky narrative, that I expected a clever wrap-up at the end that would explain their unnatural timeliness and perfection.

Aside: I also felt a ton of John Scalzi syndrome, where every freaking character has exactly the same sarcastic, woe-is-me-but-I'm-gritting-through-it-with-a-laugh temperament. If OM had had a little less NM in her, I would've appreciated it. But even though everyone told me over and over throughout that OM was passive, there was very little evident in the letters to show it. Oh sure, you can argue that NM shares some character traits with OM, since they're "the same person' on some level, but the overlap was never earned. Similar issue here, and not just with the characters, but with OM and NM. The voices merged into two characters ripped from Scalzidom.

Bottom line for me: You had to do more than the usual internal retconning (there's always a lot in any book; it's whether it's earned that's important) to make the story successful. And it's nearly impossible to retcon the perfectly timed, strangely narrative letter injections. Again, the tone of the italics quickly mirrored the main story, and that blew up the conceit. OM has a much different audience and genre -- a different goal, different action -- than O'Malley telling the story of NM, and I couldn't tell the difference between them (OM's letters and DO'M's book).

Anyhow, yeah, agree with the general sentiment... There's something about the letters that's off. Too convenient, too unearned. The Rook only managed to deserve half of the puff on the cover of my ebook -- "Utterly engrossing and frequently hilarious" yes, "Utterly convincing and totally thought-through", not quite, and I think you've put your finger on why.

I think its all down to how it feels. I read TGATJ and felt no infodump. This book **feels** like the largest infodump I've ever read... and I don't like it. And here we are with a thread about infodumps for TR - was there such a thread for TGATJ?

I tend to like William S Gibson's approach. If I was writing a book about this world today, and there was reference to "McDonalds" I'd see no need to say "Its a large worldwide fast food burger chain". WSG tends to never explain anything. He refers to places, events, corporates with no more information, and as you read you gradually piece together the world. Some stuff you never understand, and that's ok, because its not vital to the story but it adds atmosphere.

I much prefer this style of storytelling.

I'm also not referring to a style I've seen in many "in our universe but in the future" books (eg. A long way to a small angry planet) where you mention a list of three things, where the first two are historical and the third is made up, and the association makes the explanation. (eg. "the theories of Newton, Einstein and Kapoor"). Thats just lazy.

fezfox wrote: "...I tend to like William S Gibson's approach. If I was writing a book about this world today, and there was reference to "McDonalds" I'd see no need to say "Its a large worldwide fast food burger chain". WSG tends to never explain anything..."

And this is exactly why I tend to shy away from historical fiction that does this or modern stories set in cities I'm not intimately familiar with that include a lot of head nods to the local area. I hate being expected to read another book to enjoy the one I'm currently reading.

There absolutely could be more fluid and clever ways to disseminate the info in the letters, but I particularly liked this mechanism because it gave us an understanding of Thomas, why she was so meek, why the other characters felt it was OK to treat her a certain way, and it more importantly, made me reflect on some of the more poignant experiences in my life and wonder what kind of person I'd be if I didn't have them shape who I am.

I really think it boils down to infodumps get a bad rep. It's as if readers chose a book they're interested in, but want to be tricked into getting engaged and involved with the world? When I'm reading fantasy the more I know about the world, the more I'm invested in the story and the characters I get. I do think that when infodumps are written counter to the flow of the story such that there's a drastic shift in the tone when they happen that those are done poorly.

@Brendan Yours is a tricky point to respond to, because you're not wrong, and to a point I agree that the novelistic style of the letters don't quite mesh with the sense of urgency imbued in the story of Thomas' last days. I also still have the impression that the parallell worlds device springs partly from the desire of the author to go more into background of the world he's created, similar to the kind of forced world-building or prominently displayed background research that most annoy me.
And yet. And yet, I really did enjoy it!. It's not a great book, but it was a fun read that went by very quickly. And the backstory from the letters is relevant to the present-day story.
Made hard to decide how to rank it. Is it a three star book; good while it lasted, but forgettable? Or is it a four star book; decent, but with a novel spin that raises it above the average? I went back and forth several times before landing on a four, but it's one instances where I most wished Goodreads had half-star ratings.
Is The Rook guilty of exposition? Yes, but exposition - like all other stylistic choices - is only a crime if done poorly.

I would be curious how people felt about the characters of Myfanwy and Thomas and if there is any correlation to how much they felt the letters were infodumps. I think when an infodump is a bad thing is when it is not doing anything else for the book besides reveal information about the world. The Writing Excuses podcast often talks about the best way to avoid infodumps is to provide the information in ways that accomplish more than one thing (ie, develop the character in addition to providing information).

"As is, the letters were too pat, too easily integrated with and called for by the narrative as they were introduced, too perfectly crafted for exactly the points in the story where they were revealed."

My impression was that 1.0 had written letters on all of the major players in the Checquy so that when one was about to be confronted, 2.0 read that letter (and so did we).

There seems to be a bit of 'infodump-itis' in the group right now. A year or so ago, everyone was on about Mary Sue/Gary Stu and 'isn't this character really an author stand in'. Now, it seems we're all sensitive to info dumps. It's almost as if people are not reading the book immersively but looking for points to criticize and "Hey, we know info dumps are bad and this kinda looks like one so..."

Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize weaknesses but as I asked above a week or two ago... how else would you tell THIS story? Not some other variation on it where, perhaps, Myfawny 2.0 has a confidant who helps her, etc but THIS story? Because without some level of background information, she'd never have lasted and having her survive would have stretched the bounds of believability. Finally, given how 1.0 is portrayed (an admin par excellence), is it so strange that knowing what she knows about her upcoming loss she would write a detailed dossier?

Rick wrote: ""My impression was that 1.0 had written letters on all of the major players in the Checquy so that when one was about to be confronted, 2.0 read that letter (and so did we). "

I'm curious how, in chapter 36, Myfanwy found the time, inclination and light to read a letter by while she was (view spoiler)[trapped inside a gelatinous flesh-cube (hide spoiler)].

Also worth pondering: who exactly writes letters with full, accurate quotations from other people? Letters that read oddly exactly like a chapter from a novel. Were novel-writing and perfect memory unstated powers that she had?

Brendan wrote: "I'm curious how, in chapter 36, Myfanwy found the time, inclination and light to read a letter by while she was [trapped inside a gelatinous flesh-cube (hide spoiler)]"

See I didn't read it as if Myfanwy was reading the letters at exactly the right time that she needed them. In fact, the only time the book portrays her doing that is with the purple binder. The letters I felt were when Myfanwy had downtime and was getting to know Thomas better.

I thought the audiobook did a great job of changing to a lecturer type Thomas voice when Myfanwy was reading from the binder and using a conversational voice when she was reading the letters.

I may be misremembering, but I think the full quotes were used in the binder, which would be an appropriate place for them. And given what we know about Thomas (from the letters coincidentally), she was very detail oriented, introverted and had great recall and research capabilities, it's very likely that she'd write in that manner.

The full quotes were from the same letter in chapter 36.

Brendan wrote: "Rick wrote: ""My impression was that 1.0 had written letters on all of the major players in the Checquy so that when one was about to be confronted, 2.0 read that letter (and so did we). "

I'm cur..."

Oh come on, what else do you do in (view spoiler)[a gelatinous flesh cube? (hide spoiler)] :)

I get that the letters bother some of you. I get why. They didn't get in my way and for the 4th time, I'll ask... how else would you credibly tell THIS story?

Rick wrote: "how else would you credibly tell THIS story"

Well, I am about to lem it, so I guess my answer is "don't tell the story at all coz its too boring to read". The fact that there is a sequel to this tedium makes me even less likely to continue.

I'm having a hard time getting into it because the infodumps are constant... and italicized. Pages and pages of italics is annoying.

In the casting thread someone mentioned Tatiana Maslany as the main character, which is a great choice except it invites comparisons to Orphan Black. That uses a similar "throw her into a role that her doppelganger occupied" but handles the parceling out of information much more elegantly.

Rick wrote: "I get that the letters bother some of you. I get why. They didn't get in my way and for the 4th time, I'll ask... how else would you credibly tell THIS story? "

I'd rely on the built-in aspects of the character. First off, she's toxic to the touch, so she can't get treatment for her injuries. (Requires slight tweaking of the power. Maybe while very stressed she also gives off pheromones which do the same thing as her touch.) She's clearly been beaten up. She can feign a migraine (or actually have one but exaggerate it), and also claim a slight bit of dain bramage to explain memory lapses. Maybe a concussion, but no one can actually test to see if that's true.

Also, the dream lady can read her mind, so there's an ally. I'm not very far in so I don't know how that plays out in the existing story, but I'd have the dream woman forced into an alliance with Miffy out of her own self-interest. She can feed Miffy info. Telepathy means she can download it quickly.

The assistant Ingrid can be a loyal ally, willing to help her out.

Combine that with some natural street smarts and people skills, as we see her use when Steffi comes to visit (which was a bit clunky, honestly; someone you've known for 20 years is going to cotton to your ignorance pretty quickly).

With all of that I'd use a couple letters, maybe some voicemails left by Thomas, a few clues in her notes and then the Checquy manual in Thomas' secret hideout.

That way we avoid the letter letter letter letter thing we have going on now.

Trike wrote: "Rick wrote: "I get that the letters bother some of you. I get why. They didn't get in my way and for the 4th time, I'll ask... how else would you credibly tell THIS story? "

I'd rely on the built-..."

And that's what I mean. You didn't tell the same story... you told a variation that, the further you went, diverged more and more. Plus, you didn't actually avoid the issue - "...With all of that I'd use a couple letters, maybe some voicemails left by Thomas, a few clues in her notes and then the Checquy manual in Thomas' secret hideout...." So you have some letters... but then some letters that aren't letters but voicemails. Oh and the entire manual. Plus some kind of download from Lady whatshername. Is all of that *really* different from the letters? Not to me - it's still solving the core issue which is that Thomas a) was attacked, b) doesn't know who was behind the attack, c) needs to find out to prevent another attack and d) has to conceal her condition while still working at the Checquy. There's no real way to do all of that without some external source of information. Even flashbacks/fragments of memories returning are going to be descriptive.

That's my point, really. Given the story outline you have to have SOME kind of information being fed to Thomas. We can bend that into something other than letters, but that's really just playing around the edges.

I'm only about 20% in but so far the letters remind me of footnotes or appendices found in other books. Information that may be interesting but that interrupts the main flow of the story. Perhaps some people would enjoy the book better if they were in their own section that could be referred to when wanted.
The main story could say "Myfanwy knew from the letters that X was true."

I wonder if reading speed and reaction to the letters is correlated. I'm a reasonably fast reader - ~300wpm or so - so a page or 3 of letters takes me about 2 minutes to read.

The more I read and think about this, the more I believe that we have trained ourselves to think: info dump=bad. So when we identify a part of a story as an info dump there is a negative reaction to it.

There is another aspect to the letters. The letters give Thomas a plot arc of her own. If you left out the letters, all you get in the story is what happens to Myfanwy after she wakes up with a blank memory. You would not get (view spoiler)[the backstory on how Thomas found out she would lose her memory or the investigations she made to try to stop it from happening (hide spoiler)] without the letters.

Rick wrote: "I wonder if reading speed and reaction to the letters is correlated. I'm a reasonably fast reader - ~300wpm or so - so a page or 3 of letters takes me about 2 minutes to read."

You are now outright insulting people that didn't like The Rook and implying that they're stupid. You should stop.

Brendan wrote: "Rick wrote: "I wonder if reading speed and reaction to the letters is correlated. I'm a reasonably fast reader - ~300wpm or so - so a page or 3 of letters takes me about 2 minutes to read."

You ar..."

Easy there tiger, that's not what they said. Slow reading speed does not equal stupid, nor does fast = smart.....although I can read over 600 WPM!

Personally I enjoyed the letters as a plot device