What do you think?
Rate this book
DadQuest: A Fantasy-Fueled Fiasco
Seth Madrigal, humble househusband and homeschooling father, didn’t burn down the house. Let’s just all keep that in mind.
All he’d intended to do was rekindle his kids' love for learning by wrapping their day in a fantasy live action roleplay system he Dadquest. It involved adventure, intrigue, loot—with a little homework thrown in to keep things educational.
Sure, he may have unknowingly brought home a cursed book that summoned evil minions to kill his family. I guess there’s no point denying that part. If it weren’t for the shattered toilet in the upstairs bathroom or the scorch marks on the backyard lawn ( the house did not burn down!), Seth might have been able to chalk the whole thing up to a sleep-deprived, caffeine-fueled hallucination. Or perhaps a nervous breakdown. Maybe a mid-life crisis. Goddess knows he was ripe for all three.
Look, of course it sounds impossible and ridiculous. But every word of it is true. And if his beloved wife accepted his five thousand apologies—including his explanation about how his mother-in-law’s lipstick got all over his face—then you should, too.
Let’s focus on the fact that the house is officially not burned down. Seth kept his word. To his wife. He deserves a raise. (but will also accept a chest of legendary loot as compensation. Huzzah!)
This fantasy-fueled fiasco was written by Tom Sadira for his upcoming short story anthology A Few Before We're Through, which is now available for pre-order on Amazon.
All he’d intended to do was rekindle his kids' love for learning by wrapping their day in a fantasy live action roleplay system he Dadquest. It involved adventure, intrigue, loot—with a little homework thrown in to keep things educational.
Sure, he may have unknowingly brought home a cursed book that summoned evil minions to kill his family. I guess there’s no point denying that part. If it weren’t for the shattered toilet in the upstairs bathroom or the scorch marks on the backyard lawn ( the house did not burn down!), Seth might have been able to chalk the whole thing up to a sleep-deprived, caffeine-fueled hallucination. Or perhaps a nervous breakdown. Maybe a mid-life crisis. Goddess knows he was ripe for all three.
Look, of course it sounds impossible and ridiculous. But every word of it is true. And if his beloved wife accepted his five thousand apologies—including his explanation about how his mother-in-law’s lipstick got all over his face—then you should, too.
Let’s focus on the fact that the house is officially not burned down. Seth kept his word. To his wife. He deserves a raise. (but will also accept a chest of legendary loot as compensation. Huzzah!)
This fantasy-fueled fiasco was written by Tom Sadira for his upcoming short story anthology A Few Before We're Through, which is now available for pre-order on Amazon.
- GenresFantasy
60 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 26, 2024
1 person is currently reading
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 20, 2026
It is exactly as the described in the blurb. A knowingly goofy and hokey short story, with some heart and reasonable humour. Nerd dads are hot now, right? ... Right?
(That's the review. The rest is a tangential rant; the author's role in it is entirely positive and is solely an opening point of comparison.)
This author came to my attention when he openly bashed an AI slop book, something far too few readers, let alone authors, are willing to do. Peddlers of AI slop "writing" receive cover when reviewers are reluctant to call it out, fearing that they could be unfairly maligning someone. When it's slop, call it slop; it's not hard to identify. The odds that an entirely human-written work would replicate the specific tics and failings at the same absurd frequency that generative AI presents ad nauseum are infinitesimal. If you must, add a caveat that the book does the exact same things AI is well-known for and provide specific examples, but don't be afraid to say it, if you know what AI "writing" looks like from direct experience.
Anyway, this author wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and I was so impressed I bought a couple of his published works (confession: they were free at the time, but at least I honestly intended to read them), but it shouldn't be that unusual for an author to do this. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I have seen the "Goodreads Author" tag on a positive review of a piece of obvious AI slop. Is that author also a slop purveyor? Only sometimes; most often they appear to be a regular non-AI-using self-publishing author of limited scope themselves. Of course the world is populated by a wondrous variety of people with a whole range of reading comprehension and taste, and although one would think an author would have a better sense of acceptable writing, as we are well into our second decade of absolute barrier-free self-publishing (thanks, Smashwords and Amazon!) there is no reason to attribute good judgement of the written word to someone just because they have shoveled something into the public sphere with their own name attached. But even someone who can write perfectly well might post a positive review of a crap book. Why?
Maybe it's out of fear of saying something bad about someone else's work. You know: toxic positivity. It's part and parcel of 5-star culture, in which completing the bare minimum requirement is expected to garner full accolades. And look: if you don't give low ratings, how can I put faith in your high ratings? This applies even to Robin Hobb; she posts GR reviews at times, but although in her bio she says "I am shocked to find that some people think a 2 star 'I liked it' rating is a bad rating. What? I liked it. I LIKED it! That means I read the whole thing, to the last page, in spite of my life raining comets on me. It's a good book that survives the reading process with me. If a book is so-so, it ends up under the bed somewhere, or maybe under a stinky judo bag in the back of the van. So a 2 star from me means,yes, I liked the book, and I'd loan it to a friend and it went everywhere in my jacket pocket or purse until I finished it." She has not, however, given anything other than a 5-star rating since 2020. So while I have the utmost confidence in her own writing ability (I mean, come on) and her judgment, I cannot put store in her reviews, which appear to be intended to support other authors and not share any critical judgment. (I agree with her bio's stated faith in the star rating curve, though, which is why my 3-star rating for this story should be seen as the positive endorsement it is.)
More so though, reviews by authors are plagued by something even worse: review swaps. Because it is believed that a book has to have reviews in order to generate buzz and, ultimately, sales, self-publishing authors often resort to agreements with other self-publishing authors to review each others' books. It's often unspoked that these will be positive reviews, but even when honesty is outwardly suggested, the fear of a retributive negative review forces these authors to say something positive, even when it is obviously generic and scripted. Of what value is this, then? As a reader, when I see an obscure author's review on an obscure book, I assume it's part of such an exchange. Thus, such reviews can be discounted entirely, because there is zero expectation of genuineness. Further, I hold both the book's author and the reviewing author in contempt for resorting to such desperate measures.
I've even seen authors reading and reviewing multiple AI slop books as part of a "points" system with some author promo program so that someone, anyone, will in turn review their own book. Who does this possibly help, other than the paid service arranging all this maneuvering? It's pathetic and transparent.
Besides, readers can tell when reviews are crap, when they're clearly the product of an author swap, when they're paid reviews, when they're inauthentic attempts at shilling. To have such things attached to your book hurts its publicity more than it can possibly help. The only actual help is to write things actually worth reading and if that's not happening without all the rest, then keep writing, keep trying. Keep at it for ten years, twenty years if necessary. Just because you write something, it doesn't mean you have to publish it, just because you can do so with virtually no effort. Bring back trunk novels. Bring back standards. Bring back gatekeepers.
Yes, yes, I know, author visibility is extremely difficult for all but the lucky few. But almost every piece of author self-promotion I encounter, be it in desperate review exchanges, paid reviews (don't get me started on the meaninglessness of Reader's Choice or Kirkus Reviews, they just show you have more money than good judgment), any social media activity about your book or writing status ... it all stinks of flop sweat, even when the book is decent.
Reminder: all of this has nothing to do with this book or author. This author got my attention by being a normal person, unrelated to their existence as an author. No, that's not a call to market yourself by being a normal person; you've already lost by thinking this way. Just live your life while you write, write, keep writing, learn to write better, keep doing that, and then if still no one ever reads anything you wrote at least you lived your life. A current hugely successful book is The Correspondent; that author wrote daily from 5-7am for twenty years and 8 novels before this was published and it took months for it to gather steam and become a top-tier smash hit. Let's see more of that please, and less self-publishing of underbaked work.
Thank you for coming to this unfocused rant for which many exceptions exist, from a cynical reader who has attempted to get on board the indie publishing bandwagon but just can't because of all the crappage.
(That's the review. The rest is a tangential rant; the author's role in it is entirely positive and is solely an opening point of comparison.)
This author came to my attention when he openly bashed an AI slop book, something far too few readers, let alone authors, are willing to do. Peddlers of AI slop "writing" receive cover when reviewers are reluctant to call it out, fearing that they could be unfairly maligning someone. When it's slop, call it slop; it's not hard to identify. The odds that an entirely human-written work would replicate the specific tics and failings at the same absurd frequency that generative AI presents ad nauseum are infinitesimal. If you must, add a caveat that the book does the exact same things AI is well-known for and provide specific examples, but don't be afraid to say it, if you know what AI "writing" looks like from direct experience.
Anyway, this author wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade, and I was so impressed I bought a couple of his published works (confession: they were free at the time, but at least I honestly intended to read them), but it shouldn't be that unusual for an author to do this. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I have seen the "Goodreads Author" tag on a positive review of a piece of obvious AI slop. Is that author also a slop purveyor? Only sometimes; most often they appear to be a regular non-AI-using self-publishing author of limited scope themselves. Of course the world is populated by a wondrous variety of people with a whole range of reading comprehension and taste, and although one would think an author would have a better sense of acceptable writing, as we are well into our second decade of absolute barrier-free self-publishing (thanks, Smashwords and Amazon!) there is no reason to attribute good judgement of the written word to someone just because they have shoveled something into the public sphere with their own name attached. But even someone who can write perfectly well might post a positive review of a crap book. Why?
Maybe it's out of fear of saying something bad about someone else's work. You know: toxic positivity. It's part and parcel of 5-star culture, in which completing the bare minimum requirement is expected to garner full accolades. And look: if you don't give low ratings, how can I put faith in your high ratings? This applies even to Robin Hobb; she posts GR reviews at times, but although in her bio she says "I am shocked to find that some people think a 2 star 'I liked it' rating is a bad rating. What? I liked it. I LIKED it! That means I read the whole thing, to the last page, in spite of my life raining comets on me. It's a good book that survives the reading process with me. If a book is so-so, it ends up under the bed somewhere, or maybe under a stinky judo bag in the back of the van. So a 2 star from me means,yes, I liked the book, and I'd loan it to a friend and it went everywhere in my jacket pocket or purse until I finished it." She has not, however, given anything other than a 5-star rating since 2020. So while I have the utmost confidence in her own writing ability (I mean, come on) and her judgment, I cannot put store in her reviews, which appear to be intended to support other authors and not share any critical judgment. (I agree with her bio's stated faith in the star rating curve, though, which is why my 3-star rating for this story should be seen as the positive endorsement it is.)
More so though, reviews by authors are plagued by something even worse: review swaps. Because it is believed that a book has to have reviews in order to generate buzz and, ultimately, sales, self-publishing authors often resort to agreements with other self-publishing authors to review each others' books. It's often unspoked that these will be positive reviews, but even when honesty is outwardly suggested, the fear of a retributive negative review forces these authors to say something positive, even when it is obviously generic and scripted. Of what value is this, then? As a reader, when I see an obscure author's review on an obscure book, I assume it's part of such an exchange. Thus, such reviews can be discounted entirely, because there is zero expectation of genuineness. Further, I hold both the book's author and the reviewing author in contempt for resorting to such desperate measures.
I've even seen authors reading and reviewing multiple AI slop books as part of a "points" system with some author promo program so that someone, anyone, will in turn review their own book. Who does this possibly help, other than the paid service arranging all this maneuvering? It's pathetic and transparent.
Besides, readers can tell when reviews are crap, when they're clearly the product of an author swap, when they're paid reviews, when they're inauthentic attempts at shilling. To have such things attached to your book hurts its publicity more than it can possibly help. The only actual help is to write things actually worth reading and if that's not happening without all the rest, then keep writing, keep trying. Keep at it for ten years, twenty years if necessary. Just because you write something, it doesn't mean you have to publish it, just because you can do so with virtually no effort. Bring back trunk novels. Bring back standards. Bring back gatekeepers.
Yes, yes, I know, author visibility is extremely difficult for all but the lucky few. But almost every piece of author self-promotion I encounter, be it in desperate review exchanges, paid reviews (don't get me started on the meaninglessness of Reader's Choice or Kirkus Reviews, they just show you have more money than good judgment), any social media activity about your book or writing status ... it all stinks of flop sweat, even when the book is decent.
Reminder: all of this has nothing to do with this book or author. This author got my attention by being a normal person, unrelated to their existence as an author. No, that's not a call to market yourself by being a normal person; you've already lost by thinking this way. Just live your life while you write, write, keep writing, learn to write better, keep doing that, and then if still no one ever reads anything you wrote at least you lived your life. A current hugely successful book is The Correspondent; that author wrote daily from 5-7am for twenty years and 8 novels before this was published and it took months for it to gather steam and become a top-tier smash hit. Let's see more of that please, and less self-publishing of underbaked work.
Thank you for coming to this unfocused rant for which many exceptions exist, from a cynical reader who has attempted to get on board the indie publishing bandwagon but just can't because of all the crappage.
Displaying 1 of 1 review