Although there were several aspects of the first three books in the series that I disliked (Will's tendency to go off tangent about the big moral questions of life, universe and everything, the cartoony female characters whose first and foremost function was to be love interests for the adventuring men, the sometimes a bit awkward cameos from historical figures), I enjoyed them overall. I came late to the series so I had no idea about the whole cancellation drama and the fans petitioning for more books. Well, be careful what you wish for, I'd say.
What happens in The Final Descent is that everything gets subverted. Gone is the childishly naive narrative of a likeable brave orphan, gone is the traditional structure of the novels. Who wouldn't like subverting things, you ask? That's what we do, in our post post postmodern times after all. We use unreliable narrators, we skip from one place to another, we are all chronology? what chronology?, we repeat phrases and move in circles, we incorporate other literary texts and just plain go crazy with the narrative.
Since Will Henry is the supposed author of the majority of the text, I guess congratulations are in order, Will, you finally woke up to the literary devices of the 20th century. Since he's also the main character, where better to start the subversion process than from himself? So he goes all ambiguity on us and makes it seem as if he was lying all the time and he is in fact somebody else. But how does that work? If he's still writing in the 1950's about the 1880's and forward, he was already past his radical change of character into a ruthless monster (or puberty, as it is known today) when he started writing the books. In other words, he had done his burning out due to the fact that no child could realistically withstand what he was subjected to a long time before he sat down to write the first Monstrumologist folio. So why weren't the first three books messed up, I wonder?
The Final Descent doesn't fit the series - the form, the tone, the characters, everything is different. I can understand that this was probably the author's point - to discuss and deconstruct his own creation, to look at the characters from a new and more realistic point of view. However, I think that to challenge his own narrator and completely devalue said narrator's credibility doesn't do much service to what is now a tetralogy. The first three books depended on us trusting Will Henry to be telling the truth - why else would we care about any of the characters or what happened to them? I know, unreliable narrator - how artsy, but to me, the main attraction of the books lay in the fact that they were well-written adventure stories with interesting characters. Will Henry's unrealiabity was fine when it was natural due to the fact the he was a child when he lived through the events. Now when it turns out he could've made up anything at any time ... it really does a disservice to all the character development of the first three books.
People are supposed to be disappointed but still fascinated by Will Henry and to perceive the fourth book as a logical continuation of the trilogy - well, I don't. Firstly, I don't appreciate being told how to feel about a character or how to read a book. Secondly, I can't honestly perceive the fourth book as a continuation since it's so incongruous to the rest of the series. Of course the result changes if you change the conditions, but that's called cheating - or in this case, a writing exercise rather than an actual next installment.
Will Henry ends up being really f****d up --- which is understandable when you apply real world contemporary standards to him, but why should we? The books were never real, they were always fiction with its own set of rules about what's realistic and what isn't. Not freezing to death when you should by all real world accounts freeze to death is considered realistic. Being incredibly brave as a matter of fact is considered realistic. Realistically, instead of raising a happy Weasley family, Harry Potter should spend his life doing therapy and jumping three feet high at every flash of green light. But he doesn't and it seems fine because it was never implied in the books that we should actually deconstruct them and read between the lines according to real world standards.
Will Henry was destined to end badly from the first novel, but ending badly does not necessarily equal changing the whole tone, form and structure of the book and suddenly transporting him into a world where he is governed by much stricter laws of realism and child psychology. All in all, The Final Descent reads like a writing exercise, a character study, a what-if new perspective rather than another Monstrumologist book.
I guess that's what happens when a series gets cancelled and the author scrambles to reach some sort of all-encompassing closure.
In trying to wrap this up with as much sense of finality as possible, the author overreached himself. I neither loved nor hated this book, it was an interesting read, but even as I was reading, I was already finding things to criticize about it (which isn't always the case I swear). After finishing the book (I read the whole series in the past two weeks), I did not despair about the unfairness of Will's fictional fate, I despaired about the unfairness of a promising series getting cancelled just after three books.