This book featured a type of story I absolutely hate; the one where all of the side characters in a book hate the protagonist for something that isn't the protagonist's fault. Here are my top reasons why this kind of story sucks:
1 - Good guys become antagonists.
An antagonist is a character who opposes or is hostile to the protagonist. Normally this role falls to the villain because that makes the most sense. However, it's sometimes fun to play with this by having antagonists be characters who really shouldn't be antagonists. There are great stories about enemies who become perfect partners by playing with this formula. In fact, almost every story has this in a minor way, usually in the form of characters who don't get on but overcome their differences to work towards a common goal, but those are more minor antagonists.
For every great story of a major antagonist turned ally, there are a hundred bad ones because, at the end of the day, we as readers normally cheer for the protagonist. Therefore we tend to dislike anyone working against them. It takes a special story to overcome this sort of imbalance, and I have never read a successful version where there are multiple good guys who follow this arc.
This story tries just that and you know right from the beginning it won't work because as a reader I don't want it to work. It's like the trope of a kid making friends with his bully for one reason or another. It's never satisfying because we don't want to make friends with that arsehole, we want to see him punished. Multiply that feeling over multiple characters and suddenly you have a whole lot of dissatisfaction heading your way.
2 - It's not just, and therefore it's not satisfying.
Being with the protagonist for the entire journey means that we know his reasons for his actions and how events unfolded. Therefore we know when other character's actions are unjust.
Justice is important in writing (as I hinted at earlier with my bully analogy). Sure, sometimes it's a powerful move to see justice thwarted because it serves the story to have it happen that way. Again, here it takes a special kind of story to pull this off because above all else, readers want to be satisfied. The easiest way to satisfy a reader is to show them justice happening to people they dislike. If you are going to thwart justice, then you need to make the story satisfying in some other way.
The animosity shown to the main character throughout this book was unjust and we know that because...
3 - The conflict could be solved with a few sentences
Yep, that old chestnut. If a conflict can ever be solved by someone getting the chance to speak a few sentences in self-defence, then it is not a strong enough conflict to drive a novel. The conflict in this novel is constantly driven by characters refusing to listen to the protagonist's side of a story, even when it makes obvious sense for them to listen to it. Whenever that happens, it's always because an author is trying to write themselves out of the whole they have written themselves into by following this sort of plot. It never ever works!
So overall, this wasn't an enjoyable book and it is only my respect for one of the two authors that I have kept reading. I notice that Mr E Green's name drops off the cover for the next books and I will try one more just to see if that makes a difference. I haven't read anything else by that author whereas I am a big fan of Michael Scott Earle's work. I hope that maybe a lot of what is wrong with this series will be cleaned away in book 3.