Mmkay.
So, first off, I really like the author. Seems like a great guy, fantastic Youtube channel, etc. I hope he keeps writing, and I'll probably give his future work another shot.
I don't want to come off as bashing this book. There were things I really liked - the setting is interesting, the hard magic aspects (darkstone in particular) are engaging and well-thought out, and you can tell that Shad's put a lot of effort into taking fantastical premises to logical and grounded conclusions. He also knows his way around weapons and medieval combat, and I appreciate the realism (even if the action scenes did seem a little too concerned with giving various guards their proper names over getting a good 'flow' going). That's all good.
However, I cannot say that I enjoyed this book. There's a few reasons for that.
1. the Protagonist.
Daylen is by far the biggest problem with the book. His characterization is super inconsistent, as he jumps from bratty teenager to world-weary veteran to cocky swordsman so quickly it gives you whiplash. The character's past is also...not handled well. I've got no issues with villain protagonists (Glokta from First Law is, IMO, one of the best characters I've ever read), but Daylen feels less like a repentant monster, and more like a standard anime badass with a tragic past, who deals with said past by crying in his room for a few minutes every so often, before getting back to glorious ass-kicking. It does not feel like the two sides of his character mesh well at all.
On top of that, I'm not entirely comfortable with the way his character is portrayed. Past aside (and hoo boy, is it ever a past. Guy is basically a fantasy Stalin/Lenin hybrid, and on top of that, he's personally guilty of just about every heinous crime there is. Yes, even those ones), his current actions are...ethically dubious? at best? After being magically de-aged and gaining superpowers because of some handwavium (more or that later), his first response is to go on an ultraviolent batmanesque rampage. He kills. he mutilates. He takes pleasure in killing his targets, often in sadistic ways, even when he is perfectly capable of capturing them alive (none of his targets really stand a chance against him, either). The story justifies this because his targets are all terrible people (who doesn't cheer when a sex slaver gets anally impaled?), and it almost invariably treats his actions as unreservedly heroic. I'll use Glokta as an example again here - the dude's a sadistic, self-pitying monster who tortures (mostly innocent) people for a living, and the story makes sure we know that he's a terrible human being. We root for him because he's hilarious, self-aware, because everyone else in the story is just as terrible as he is, and because his actions - though terrible - are still grounded in his essential humanity. Daylen...isn't that. He's a bad person who claims to know he's a bad person...but whom the story (and most secondary characters) treat like a hero. His actions aren't grounded in understandable human motivations, but rather some vague sense of misplaced idealism (kill your way to a better world!) that makes it seems like he hasn't really changed his core beliefs, just his modus operandi (instead of killing people with a giant empire, let's kill people personally!) It's a little uncomfortable to read, because if I met someone in real life who condoned Daylen's actions (even his current actions), I'd back away slowly.
Also, Daylen comes perilously close to being a Mary Sue. He's a genius in several fields, a master inventor, a master military strategist, and one of the best swordsmen in the world. He's pioneered means of using the more hard-magic magic in ways never before seen in the world. He's extremely good looking, with a ... distinctive...appearance. On gaining magical abilities in a freak accident, he's much better with those abilities than people who have trained with them their entire lives. His only real flaw is his dark past and supposed self-loathing (and I say supposed because for a guy who claims that he'd rather die than live with what he's done, Daylen sure enjoys his life a heck of a lot. Particularly the parts of it where he kills people in gruesome and sadistic ways).
Finally, the book uses the time-honored (not) technique of showcasing Daylen's intelligence not by having him DO anything particularly intelligent, but by making every other character laughably stupid. In particular, the fact that his pretense of being the 'son' of his original self (despite the numerous inconsistencies in his story and his continual 'breaking character' to angrily defend his past actions or yell at people for talking to him like a kid) should have lasted all of 2 minutes before he was called on it. He's identical to his younger self. He's around characters that used to know him. He has nothing and no-oone to support his claim of who he is, and he has skills and knowledge that are physically impossible for someone of his supposed age. In a setting where there is no such thing as magic, I could MAYBE buy that people would not see through the ruse, but he lives in a world where soft magic is a thing, and where one of the 'types' of magic can perform literal miracles. Someone really should have figured it out before the 'dramatic reveal' near the climax.
2. The Magic System
The biggest issue here is that the story is written as though it's a hard magic system story, when the magic system is actually quite soft. I love Brandon Sanderson, and his laws of magic apply here. In particular:
"An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic"
and
" Limitations are more important than abilities".
Shad uses magic to resolve conflicts a LOT. Magic is, in fact, the cornerstone of resolving most of the conflicts in the book. The problem is that while there is a token attempt at defining what magic can do (speaking specifically of lifebringing, as that's the magic system Daylen uses, and the one that is most abused throughout the story), these rules are continually broken, twisted, and rejigged in order to allow Daylen to succeed by the skin of his teeth. A well-written hard magic system puts the reader in a position where it is theoretically possible for them to identify how the conflict might be resolved ahead of time (though great writing means you only recognize the foreshadowing in hindsight.) Clever or creative uses of pre-established abilities are one way to do this well. That's not what happens here.
Early in the book, when Daylen gets his powers, we learn a few things about them. First, that he can only change his own 'attributes'. Weight, Speed, Healing, Strength, etc. Second, he can only apply up to 4 enhancements at once. Finally, he has a limit to how much he can do before he needs to recharge (this limitation never meaningfully comes up, incidentally). And if Daylen solved conflicts with clever applications of those powers, that would be fine. He doesn't. Instead, every time he needs a new power, he stretches the limits of what qualifies as an 'attribute' that can be enhanced. Losing a sword fight? I guess he can enhance his sword skill now. Need to destroy a giant projectile hurtling towards a city? I guess he can enhance his sword to cut through it. These applications of magic don't feel clever, they feel cheap. The logic behind them is...tenuous at best, and they rob scenes of any tension, because why should we be concerned for Daylen when he can probably just enhance his, I dunno, "conflict resolution his abilities", turn into a Level 20 Diplomancer, and talk everyone into leaving him alone forever?
Additionally, while it's not a criticism per se, the 'magical abilities come with all of the necessary safeguards to prevent you from harming yourself' approach takes away from the 'hard magic' aspect of a magic system. If magic is just another set of rules (like physics), why do those rules come with the necessary ancillary safeguards to prevent you from hurting yourself with them (and also, why is it that they sometimes don't, like when Daylen accidentally turns himself intangible and blows up his feet)? Like...to refer to Sanderson again, in Mistborn, each of the 3 magic systems comes from a mixture of the influence of one of the two 'gods' of the setting, Preservation and Ruin. The magic of preservation (Ferruchemy) comes with secondary enhancements to avoid hurting the user (like added strength to go with added weight). Allomancy (the magic of blended preservation and ruin) doesn't come with those safeguards (because it's also a magic of ruin), so it's perfectly possible for an Allomancer to e.g. push themselves too far on Pewter, miss a Steelpush and crash into the ground, or accidentally kill themselves with a misjudged Ironpull. And the magic of ruin (hemalurgy) necessarily harms, damages, and RUINS it's users. Each magic is intrinsically linked to the overarching setting in a way that is readily understandable, while still being 'hard magic' because of it's limitations. In this book, however, the magic is not consistent, not linked to any core aspect of the setting (beyond vague references to 'the light'), and seems to have its' capabilities defined by the needs of the plot, not by any intrinsic limitations in the system itself.
Also, the whole 'de-aging miracle' thing feels SUPER out of place in a book that is at least TRYING to sell itself as a hard magic setting. It almost feels like the story was at one point written with the main character ACTUALLY being Daylen's son, before being partially rewritten to it's current form.
Those are the big two, but to briefly sum up the rest of my issues:
- the humor is grating and corny. Bad humor doesn't become good just because you lampshade how bad it is. Also, modern terminology in a fantasy novel has to be used with care.
- there's a low of unnecessary verbiage and exposition.
- the plot was predictable. I called Ahrek as Rayaten almost as soon as the latter was mentioned, and nothing else was really surprising.
- the treatment of sexual assault was fairly insensitive. Particularly given the protagonist's past. It's not clear why the author needed to include the rape elements at all, aside from shock value or (I'm gonna guess) 'realism' (because yes, this is likely what would happen with a real world dictator with no morality and generally unchecked power). IMO none of the rape elements needed to be included, and the book would have been better without them.
- Daylen's past in general is treated poorly. He's supposedly an unforgivable monster (and indeed, the things he's done would literally be unforgivable in a sane world), but his past actions are always 'justified' or mitigated by circumstances somehow, so the author can dance around the question of whether or not he's actually a monster (he is). Also, the whole 'everyone forgives him and decides to let him join the magical order of knights instead of executing him' at end was super far-fetched. People just...don't react like that. Especially not politicians. There was no reasonable end to that trial that did not see Daylen executed.
Finally, "Sunucles" is a silly name for the magical items in the setting. It feels like a bad pun on 'icicles' that doesn't make any sense at all when you give it 2 minutes of thought. It feels meta and more than a bit silly, and it jarred me out of my suspension of disbelief every time I saw the word.
2/5