Reviews and Comments

DNF

It's really weird how the balance of starting us in the middle of the action vs the slow buildup in an origin story is SO delicate. You get one element wrong and the whole thing just feels off. If you do a slow buildup then it can take too long to get going. But if you throw us right into the action you can easily gloss over details that the reader really should have been there for.

Will's story is the perfect example of this. It wouldn't have been boring to give us bits of his life on the run with his mother, what happened when she died, the servants who were confidants. But they don't give us this information until right in the middle of things and having characters try to "explain" the story to people who were there when it happened?

So the story simultaneously is trying to tell you two different things with a weird narrative voice.

One is like: So this boy is working on the docks, he's poor, and he finds this mirror and sees this chick and now people are chasing him. Oh, and he wasn't always poor. And so they're chasing him through the str- oh, and also he had a mother, street and he's bobbing and weavin- oh, and that mother? She's dead now. So anyway.

The other is like: Two characters are meeting up after a traumatic event. A death or something.

Guy number one says "Hi, Keith, my best friend since we were kids who I was really close to before the death of my sister he caused by drunk driving. How are you?"

Keith says "Yes, Brad. I was there, and driving drunk, and I killed your sister Bethany, who is your sister."

It's a mess.

So yeah, it's a no for me.

This is such a mixed bag. There's a lot to like here, and there's a lot that TRIED to work, but didn't really land for me, and there's a lot that just flat out didn't work. I'm going to be dissecting this book pretty heavily, so spoilers abound.

I guess let's start with what I like: The main 3 characters are very well written. They have a good chemistry with each other, snappy dialogue and comebacks that were entertaining to read. I remember at the start of this book that the depth and honesty with which they tackled Monty's vices was really engaging. Felicity and Percy also stand out as great characters and compliments to each other; Felicity being the fierce and assertive woman, while Percy is more of a quiet and calm dominance in the way he holds himself.

Percy being black felt like it had consequences and was aware of itself. It didn't, by contrast, feel like Bridgerton where these black characters are just flaunting around in high society and no one says anything about it. Especially good were the moments with the French authorities and Scipio. It feels well researched and respectfully written as opposed to a writer doing the bare minimum with a token character and a vague, white-washed understanding of their issues. Though, referring to her section in the author's note as "race relations" is kinda yikes to me.

Side characters like Helena and Daunte on the other hand are not given the same treatment on their characters, their arcs, or their plot lines. Daunte in particular feels like he's just doing an imitation of Fear from Inside Out, with no real depth or diversity to his personality. Helena is a bit better, but compared to Felicity, her motivations seem flimsy and on pretense for the sole purpose of creating a "mystery."

That is one of the big problems for me, this book went the direction of a fantasy, Tomb Raider type romp and it didn't need to be that way at all. A simple period drama would have done wonders for the authenticity of these characters and given them reasons to explore themselves beyond "magic." In particularly this is offensive to Percy's disability and his epilepsy. While she handles it well with Percy accepting and not having an interest in "curing" his disability, the entire fantasy element is set up so Monty has a motivation to unlearn his ableism. Considering he ends up becoming disabled himself, I don't know, something about it reeks of ableism though it's clear she had some awareness of the conversations within the disabled community.

Many story beats and tropes she tries to hit often land askew from what she was going for to the detriment of character consistency. One of the biggest examples is the "gayness conversation" that every coming of age story seems to be determined to do. A gay and a straight character have to sit down and be like "why are you gay?" to which the MESSAGE is "why is it wrong to love someone blah blah blah". That in itself is a tired trope for me, a gay male, to read, but it would have been fine if she picked the right character to have that conversation. Of all the people in Monty's life he could have sat down with, Felicity is the one who seemingly "doesn't understand." Felicity up until that point has shown to be ahead of her time in both issues of feminism and medical practice. She's smart and would be very well aware of the history of homosexuality, or at least be indifferent to it.

Another example is Monty's ability to punch. At least three times this arc and solid measure of his growth as a character is seen, from the first punch during the robbery, to the practice fight with Scipio. It's deliberately set up that this punch is the sign that Monty has finally changed, he's put his foot down and decided that enough is enough. And when it comes time to hit this mark (pun intended) with The Duke, it's completely lost in the shuffle of everything else that's happening while vying for the heart, and it just kinda killed the momentum for me. We didn't have time to savor this victory and feel really proud of Monty.

I might add more later as I've just finished it, but the book had the potential to do really well. All the ingredients were there to make a satisfying read. It just didn't hit those marks for me.