Update 11/18/2022
Well, this is a first. I've received criticism for my review in an author's Facebook group and I'm coming back to my review to say that I was wrong, they're right. I came to this conclusion after I read Dukes of Madness, I just didn't bother to come back to this review to clarify my new opinion. Basically, the portrayal of the guy with bipolar I think isn't too off base (though the nuances of mania I think could've been written better) HOWEVER if someone has bipolar and is in this kind of environment then yeah, they might be driven to psychosis. After Dukes of Madness I actually read a case study and the guy had extreme symptoms similar to this guy. So it can happen. Earlier I was biased I think by my own experience. I have a friend married to man who is bipolar and he has his shit together. One thing he dislikes about having bipolar is if he tells anyone they might assume he must be crazy or off balance....I felt here the authors portrayed the bipolar in a very extreme way that reinforced that stereotype. But this is an extreme series known for being unpc, so whatever. Also a huge positive in the second book was his friends caring about him and working to make sure he takes his meds. That was sweet to read.
edit: I'm coming back to reword this part to make it seem nicer and less bitter lol :) I understand and respect authors can run their FB groups however they like, but I found it uncool (which is atypical for these authors) to gatekeep their spoiler group. Specifically, readers had to answer questions to join, and one of the questions was about something that happened at 95% in the book. For me, this was disappointing, because I want to know spoilers before starting these books. I know I'm not the only reader like this. It comes across as almost paternalistic towards readers, as if they aren't intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves regarding whether or not they should be spoiled before joining a spoiler group.
Original review:
Okay, I was grumpy when I first wrote this review because I was disappointed in the different writing style the authors used in this book vs. Lords of Pain. To be clear, I expected different characters and a different story. It was the writing style that caused me to dnf. I like these authors and the Lords trilogy was one of my favorites I read last year. I was going to reread this and do a sort of beta read analysis in my review, but I don't want to waste my time doing that. I'm just going to do a quick list of what stood out to me.
1. The writing was bloated, the authors overexplained scenes.
I could tell while reading the authors were really excited and into the story. It was as if they wanted to take time to describe and set-up every single scene in immense detail. They wanted to describe and explain every single nuance and character interaction to make damn sure the reader absolutely knew what was going on. While I'm usually happy to read from authors who are passionate about what they are writing, this comes across as writing down to the reader instead of writing up to the reader. As if the authors don't trust the intelligence of their audience. I think likely the authors were getting their ass kissed during the beta reading process and were just very excited about the story they had to tell and didn't care about how long it was or if scenes were overexplained.
This is very common in contemporary romance, as well. Which is why the tight writing in Lords of Pain stuck out to me as refreshing. Sam Mariano overexplains scenes too ~ Sam Mariano is popular and has a large fanbase that doesn't give a fuck about her using this writing style. So if the authors are wanting to emulate Sam Mariano's writing style and appeal to her fanbase, good for them. It's unreadable to me and I feel like my intelligence is being insulted. I dnf this book early and I'm dnfing the trilogy, to put it in perspective.
An example of overexplaining a scene:
If I was beta reading I would break this down into particulars, as far as copy and pasting paragraphs and highlighting sentences that are unnecessary to the plot and weigh the story down. I'm not going to take the time to do this. However, the first wrestling match scene is a great example. At first it starts off exciting and electric. The author then dampens the suspense and electricity by spending an unreasonable amount of time describing all the Kings. Dude. It was almost a world-building info dump. Readers aren't stupid. The authors could have used a couple words, 1 or 2 sentences, and the readers would've picked up on the tension between the Kings and a couple of the guys. Instead the authors really wanted to hammer in the dynamic going on. I was thinking while reading: 'I get it, can we move on.' This took me out of the story. There were more and more scenes like this as I continued reading.
I would implore, beg the authors, if they do in fact read their reviews, to ask their Alpha or beta readers to look out for scenes that go on for too long, sentences that are repetitive, and this overexplaining of each character interaction, descriptions, inner mono, etc. If the Alpha or beta reader is a fan of Sam Mariano they aren't going to catch this.
Another thing is the dark humour that I enjoyed in the Lords trilogy so much was weighed down and unenjoyable by this bloated writing. The tight writing in Lords of Pain allowed the dark humour to shine.
2. Bad psychology
The characterization of Nick felt weak. This is a guy who is described as 'pretty.' I understand him having a huge crush on Lavinia and expecting her to show gratitude for him 'rescuing' her. But when he desperately declared love to her? That was lame, and came across as if he had *no* experience with girls, no game. I would've thought he would've had more game with girls from his earlier characterization? And idk he was intriguing in the very very beginning. I liked the audacity of him taking care of her on a weekly basis and then planning her rape (god people who don't know this series are going to think I'm sick 😂) then having the care/audacity to leave her with a coke and plan b. That was funny and amusing. I was into it. ...then once they were in the tower I was like, who is this Nick? Declaring love for Lavinia, so quickly? Again, there was no subtlety to the writing, at all. It would have been more interesting to
see
the way Nick was crushing so hard on Lavinia through his actions and then have his outburst of love later, not this soon (imo).
**I get my criticism of Nick is kinda nitpicky, and likely subjective. Although he did feel way too OTT, there was little nuance or subtlety. The below criticism is what I really thought was the worst when it came to using bad psychology.
I was going to come back and correct this part of the review after I read Dukes of Madness, but got lazy and forgot. Basically, I
I don't remember any of the names of the other guys 😂 But the guy who tattoos? And has weird, delusional dreams? When he starts having delusions and almost jumps off the clock tower because he hasn't taken his medication?
! I don't know what mental disorders the authors thought they were giving that guy, but those were psychotic symptoms people with schizophrenia have. I just got fed up, like, are the authors really giving a guy schizophrenia? And if they aren't, then his symptoms don't make sense. In college I knew of various people who had those symptoms when they 1) Took way too much Ambien and didn't go to sleep 2) Took a strong artificial psychedelic and had a bad trip. This dude didn't take any drugs, he stopped taking his medication, so it's assumed he has some disorder. Unless it's some disorder with strong psychotic symptoms this doesn't make sense. And I've known people with bipolar who went off their medication and they were never that delusional. Suicidal? Sure. But not in a 'I'm having delusions and breaking from reality' way. And if the authors really are giving him schizophrenia or something like schizoaffective disorder that's wild.
The psychology in the Lords trilogy was solid, it's not in this book. The characterization feels so much weaker to me. It's like the authors in this book are going way OTT and not taking time to do research or putting in the same care. Which leads me to another note ~ I heard Angel Lawson say in an interview she and Sam went back and forth on the Lords trilogy for a while? Tinkering with ideas. That time and care stood out to me in Lords of Pain. I could tell the authors wrote this book quickly, after Lords of Mercy.
3. Abuse of mulitple povs
Multiple povs are a given in reverse harem, but the authors quickly switched between the povs wayy too soon and too often. This connects to spoon-feeding readers scenes and overexplaining character interactions. If the authors had spent a bit more time in Lavinia or Nick's pov then the reader would get to see from their perspective what the other guys were doing, the reader would be forced to think for themselves about what was going on in the other character's heads. Well, obviously the authors don't trust their readers and wanted to make sure we knew what they were thinking very quickly in the story.
4. Making the only character of color have an enormously large dick is kinda writing a racist stereotype. I cringed when I read that. I'm assuming the authors and neither their Alpha or beta readers knew this was a racist stereotype? I'm not super upset about it or anything, just...it was cringeworthy.
I'm stopping here. I like these authors, but I had such difficulty reading this book because of the writing style I'm dnfing this entire trilogy. I think no matter what they do with the characters going forward, if they use this bloated wrting style it will be unreadable to me. I'm just praying the authors make an attempt to 'write up' to their readers in the next trilogy by making an effort to not overexplain scenes and being more balanced when switching povs between all the characters.