I've wrestled a lot whether to provide a review for these books and finally decided to raise my voice. In compiling my review I want to be very careful not to create an ad hominem attack on the author, who writes well and is inventive--but not, to my mind, well enough or with sufficient invention.
My disappointment in the series stems from three points that will not trouble other readers. First is the requirement to suspend disbelief in a positively ridiculous, unsustainable social setting. There is no society which can strengthen its ranks by killing off its potential members--particularly a society or force which claims to be engaged in a conflict with an implacable, growing enemy. It sound dramatically romantic, but killing off everyone works only in an imaginary world. To a social historian (my day job), that premise is simply not even marginally realistic. Like any conflict between corrupt warlords, this sort of competition favors not the brave or the strong, but rather those who won't take risks or will undercut the competition, exactly the opposite of the characters the author wants us to believe. In the process the author fails to note that attrition, while inevitable, occurs chiefly from accident and happenstance, which is not the same as being unsuitable. Even she realizes this point; note the change as the griffon selection is introduced into the story. Especially in Fourth Wing I found my eyes rolling so much they got tired.
Second, the constant use of coarse vulgarity sustained neither the story nor the characters at all. I don't care how common it may be on subways or among casual conversation in some groups. In my world (and my classroom) profanity is discouraged as I encourage people to think and react genuinely and effectively. Doing so prevents no one from communicating nor expressing their thoughts, but they do learn to think and shape arguments before they talk. Characters in this book evidently do not. Profanity is so common through the pages as to be wearying. The constant, gratuitous, and useless insertion of coarse language reminds me of something I learned as a young writer: "vulgarity is the sign of a weak writer trying to find forceful expression." I lost respect for the books as technical examples of storytelling while plodding through the profanity, and never really regained it.
Third, I found the choice of ceaseless promiscuity and verbal pornography to be useless distractions. It offered the reader no help toward understanding characters, served no useful or even practical plot exposition. Worst, as a literary device the descriptions of passionate abandon are utterly unlike any real-life sexual experience that is not wholly faked. Young readers looking for a thrill will find it, but those hoping for a mirror for real relationships will be sadly deceived. "If a thing can go without saying, let it," my grandfather said repeatedly. That should have been the guiding principle in these three books. In lived experience, promiscuity does not ever foster the sort of stable, committed interpersonal relationships that is supposed to be created by the central characters. Quite the opposite. Readers who want a love story won't find it tucked into the hormonal adolescent passion written here. I'm not advocating prudishness, just better narrative ability than resorting to this type of gratuitous distraction.
As one with previous professional experience in commercial publishing (albeit, a quarter century ago), it occurs to me that these flaws are not merely the faults of the writer but also reflect poor advice from both agent and editor. Doubtless both are competent, committed professionals. They should know better. For me, the stories' interesting and well-crafted qualities are offset fatally by these choices. Each of the books could have been written without these elements. They would have lost nothing as works of literature, and would have been both better storytelling and have given the works wider appeal. Other readers will think differently, asserting that they are fantasy or provide a touch of realism, but I see nothing either realistic or encouraging in this, however popular the books might be. I wish the author would have chosen differently and been a bit more careful employing the writing skill that she obviously has. Like a bowl of ice cream with only a few cockroaches mixed in with the nuts and caramel, these narrative choices provide the reasons I will not recommend the books to anyone.