Yesterday I finished The Baker's Boy by J.V. Jones.
It was not a good book.
I would not go so far as to say it was a horrible book (a description I reserve for 1-star ratings and the majority of fanfiction), but it is a bad book. It suffers from a number of major problems, ranging from technical writing issues to poor story decisions, any one of which could perhaps be forgiven on its own if the rest of the book was strong enough to support it, but it isn't. It does not surprise me that this is the author's first book, nor that (as the story goes) it was found in the slush pile. What surprises me is that it ever made it OUT of the slush pile. I -am- going to track down the rest of this series to read it. This is for two reasons: I am the kind of person who is compelled to finish a story once I start, and this book has kind of a Train Wreck in reverse feeling for me. I want to see if it gets better (and it does, a little).
So. Let's start with grammar.
I began wincing on the first page. Here we are introduced to foul deeds done by dastardly villains, and also to the author's strange relationship with pro- and proper nouns. Here's what I mean:
"The deed is done, master." Lusk barely had a second to notice the glint of the long-knife, and only a fraction of that second to realize what it meant.
Baralis sliced Lusk's body open with one forceful but elegant stroke, cleaving from the throat to the groin. Baralis shuddered as the body fell to the floor with a dull thud. He held his hand up to his face where he detected a sticky wetness: Lusk's blood. On impulse he drew his finger to his lips and tasted. It was like an old friend, coppery, salty and still warm.
He turned away from the now lifeless body and noticed his robes were covered in Lusk's blood...
First of all, it's crude writing to begin a sentence with the same word twice in a row, especially a proper noun (unless you are doing it deliberately in order to make a point, in which case you should use at least three sentences, and even then be careful about it). I can almost see the author's dilemma: "But if I use a pronoun there, then I'll just have the same problem with the next sentence!" This is easy to fix - use the name again as the beginning of the third sentence. It's also very distracting that 'Lusk' is used so often, and especially that 'Lusk's blood' is used twice in quick succession. Give us more descriptors! What this person is is much more important than who he is. He is named FIVE TIMES on the first page, and never appears in the book again. Is he a spy? A servant? Does he have weaselly features?
Before I get too distracted going on in this vein, let's talk about the author's habit of throwing phrases together in a paragraph and expecting commas to just tie them neatly together:
He turned away from the now lifeless body and noticed his robes were covered in Lusk's blood; it was not a random spraying, the blood formed a scarlet arc against the gray. A crescent moon. Baralis smiled, it was a good omen-a crescent moon marked new beginnings, new births, new opportunities-the very currency he would deal in this night.
Oooo-kay. What we have here in the first sentence are three distinct and complete phrases that could stand along by themselves, but are connected by punctuation. The first two a linked with a semicolon - this is fine, as this is one of the functions a semicolon can serve. Semicolons are Advanced Punctuation, so it is then surprising to find a comma given a job too big for it. Commas are not used to connect independent clauses, they are used for lists or dependent clauses. You can fix this by putting a period where the comma is, or by moving the semicolon to the comma and putting a period there. And then it happens again in the next big sentence! I might be able to live with this kind of thing if it were an isolated incident, but it happens All. The. Time.
Alright, on to content.
Let's play a little game called "Where's the plot going?" After reading the summary provided on the back of the book, I was expecting our two main characters to flee the castle and the book would be about their journey and pursuit by the Big Bad. Nope. They do get out of the castle, eventually, after two chapters and a prologue of backstory (none of which give you easy clues that they are time-skipping), but they are almost immediately split up. And then they get captured again and dragged back to the castle. And then they kind of wander around the castle a bit being prisoners/escaping, and then they finally leave again and the book ends, randomly, with them in the middle of nowhere a little less than halfway to their destination, which they first set out for in chapter 3. This isn't the plot taking a nice little meander before it gets serious, this is the plot stalling - kicking and screaming and dragging its heels before going off to the next book to sulk. "I just wanted you to get to know the characters!" it whines, when that would take you one chapter at the most because...
...the characters are incredibly one-dimensional. You could use a handful of words to describe their defining character traits and motivations at the beginning of the book and rest comfortable, knowing that these first impressions will not change. There's not a lot of variation either: on the "greedy" side we have the gluttonous, power-hungry, and stupid varieties, while "naive" comes in the poor-little-rich-girl and actually-poor-with-mysterious-powers flavors. Guess which are the good guys and which are the bad guys? Our one exception is the Knight With A Guilty Past (which is foreshadowed so much that by the time the flashback at the end of the book tells you what he's guilty about it's not a surprise), who is one of the few characters with a little depth because by the end of the book you're not sure if he's still a good guy. The main characters develop too, a little, and while they're kind of starting to fall in love with each other by the end, neither of them are dwelling on it a lot because they have other stuff to worry about, which is refreshing because...
...there is way too much talk of sex. About of third of the way through I was positive this book had been written by a 15-year-old boy. Nope. The author is female - J. V. is short for Julie Victoria - and in fact, this is one of the reasons I wanted to read this book. Women are still underrepresented in the industry, so I should support them by reading their books! Plus, maybe I'll get a more balanced/feminist-aware view of a fantasy world! Nope. There are exactly three kinds of conversations between characters in this book: political (I'm talking with you to further my dastardly goals/about the political situation), normal (What should we do next?), and sexual (I want to have sex with __/__ is having sex with __/I'm having sex with __/should totally have sex with __/etc.). That last category takes up fully 50% of the conversations in the book. It's really annoying. There's even a couple of minor characters whose entire purpose in the book is to pop up randomly and mention what another character is doing - after they talk about their imaginary sexual knowledge in the most crude way possible. And of all the female characters in the book (not counting characters who only get one line or show up in flashbacks), one is a prostitute, one gets raped in the prologue, one runs a gang of prostitutes, two want to have sex with main characters, and one (the main character) is almost raped and almost forced to become a prostitute. The only female character in the book not portrayed in a negative sexual way is old and oppressed because of her gender. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that the girl main character is INEXPLICABLY attracted to the Big Bad, who is a rapist, a pedophile, and a Creepy Dude. I really want to find out later in the series that this attraction is caused by a spell he cast on her as a child. There is evidence to support this.
So. Bad book. Why am I still going to read the series? I want to see if it has a good ending.