Ywa

This was almost a 4-star book for me. Almost.

I'm sad to say I didn't like it as much as the first one. It's become a less cozy mystery and more depressing suspense territory. I'm less excited for the next installment but I'm still going to read it.

I think we have this idea that it's bad, the way dudes are always thinking about sex. But to me, it's always seemed really pure. Like a puppy wanting a treat. And it starts to seem like such a little thing to do to make somebody so happy.

Moran is not my cuppa'. Reading this consolidated my feelings that she's not the storyteller for me. I don't enjoy her writing style nor her type of humor. While I agreed with some of her opinions, others felt quite dated or borderline offensive. I truly wanted to like this but I was left with the overwhelming feeling that she's just too full of herself, I couldn't enjoy this as a memoir, let alone as a feminist cannon. Maybe it's the kind of persona she needed to build to protect herself, but either way, I'm not a fan.

I've never been more conflicted on the rating of a book. I wish this was a clear-cut perfect book for me, but unfortunately, it wasn't. I loved it for the most part but there were some things that bugged and it's hard to get past them (maybe I'll get into it one day). Despite its flaws, I do understand why it's such a revered work of fiction and I guess I still count this as one of my favorites, just with an asterisk.

So, I recently delved into this book, and it certainly sparked some strong thoughts. As someone who enjoys exploring different psychological theories, I found myself intrigued by some ideas presented, but also left with a fair share of head-scratching moments.

The authors draw inspiration from Alfred Adler's theories, and while I can acknowledge his influence on modern psychology, I must admit that their interpretation in this book doesn't resonate with me.

The book loses me in its firm stance on certain aspects. It's as if the authors have taken Adler's ideas and pushed them to the extreme. They claim that trauma is merely a choice, a perspective that I find not just hard to digest but quite offensive. While I appreciate the encouragement to take ownership of our lives and not be defined solely by our past, it is essential to acknowledge the real experiences of trauma that countless individuals have endured. Dismissing trauma as a personal choice seems oversimplified and fails to recognize the complexity of human suffering.

Contemporary psychology recognizes the existence of trauma and the potential long-lasting effects it can have on individuals. Trauma-informed approaches and therapies aim to address the consequences of trauma and support individuals in their healing process. These approaches are supported by extensive research and clinical evidence.

The authors seem to be Adler's ‘fanbois' but add their own flavors to his ideas that are ignoring just about 100 years of modern psychology, medicine, and biology. And the masses love it, of course, they do. Nothing they love more than theories that sustain their belief in meritocracy and pull-yourself-by-your-bootstraps ideology.

It's so funny seeing people defend this book by saying, nooo, you misunderstood it, the ‘philosopher' isn't flat-out saying trauma doesn't exist and that people just invent trauma to fulfill their goal of being unhappy, he's just saying take responsibility for your life. No, the ‘philosopher' is not saying abusive people don't exist and you're making up their abuse because you don't like them, he's just saying life is all about relationships. Mental illness? That's not a thing. People are just using it as an excuse to get away from their responsibilities.

Now, I must confess, I initially approached this book with a longstanding beef with Adler, and my secret goal in life is to be unhappy hence I chose not to find this book ravishing or life-changing.

Just kidding, if it wasn't obvious. I had no idea this book was influenced by him and I can accept that Adler's concepts like taking responsibility and overcoming feelings of inferiority still hold relevance in modern psychology. That said, my main qualm lies in how the book's dialogue oversimplifies complex issues. Reducing all of life's problems to attitudes and interpersonal dynamics feels overly simplistic. It neglects the broader systemic issues and external factors that significantly influence our lives. Relationships are undeniably important, but they alone cannot serve as a panacea for life's challenges.

In conclusion, while the book presents some interesting concepts influenced by Adler's theories, I find it lacking in its approach to addressing complex psychological issues. If you choose to explore it, I encourage you to approach it critically.

The book is really beautiful: the cover, the illustrations, and the formatting. Kakutani, the former chief book critic of The New York Times, presents a list of books that were amongst the most influential for her. There were plenty on her list that I already wanted to read and I enjoyed her summaries of them but unfortunately, I wasn't convinced to pick up most of what wasn't already on my list.

No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

Humanity is so weird. If we're not laughing, we're crying or running for our lives because monsters are trying to eat us. And they don't even have to be real monsters. They could be the ones we make up in our heads. Don't you think that's weird?

Later update

If a ghost was a recording of a memory, as some believed, and Wasp pulled back the curtain from the third alcove on the right, she might find the wide-eyed bloody-handed ghost of herself, hugging her knees and shivering, trying to unremember the sound of her little dagger sinking hilt-deep into girlflesh, the day she earned her name.

I don't think I need to try everything to know I don't like it.

Everyone's different inside their head.

I'm an open book,” I say, thinking of all the men who have found it illegible.

Their music was good and fun, yes, but they looked kind. They were attractive, but not in a scary, very masculine way that many young girls find intimidating. They had floppy hair and skinny frames, you know, that sort of thing. Which is very fashionable now, but wasn't really back then. They gave these girls something very safe to love. Something that would never bite them back. In the sixties, everything would bite you back if you were a girl.

This didn't make me dislike Solitaire any less.

This novella focuses on Tori's brother Charlie and Nick after they've begun dating. It was better because it doesn't revolve around Tori (thank God) but it didn't make me excited to read the graphic novel that's based on them. I just saw a lot of poor communication and possibly a severe case of codependency between them?

In all the times I'd moved in New York, I'd only thought about how safe the area was for me, not what my presence meant for people in the neighborhood. Not about what advantages I had that they didn't. I was poor, too, after all, even though I had figured out how not to be, for a little while at least.

Acevedo is masterful at creating characters I can root for. We have yet again an emotional and uplifting story. Poet X is still my favorite but Acevodo's writing and narration pulled at my heart strings once more.

A story about a woman connecting to her granmother is sweet, in theory but I just didn't care for it. I didn't find the characters or plot progression particularly enjoyable.

Great premise but couldn't connect to the characters at all.

This was a miss for me. Annoying protagonists with no chemistry interacting in much too formulaic ways.

Blink, and the years fall away like leaves.

This book was like a 3rd serving of chips. It's still salty and crunchy and you want to continue munching, but it's not as satisfying as the first serving. It's also calory dense and lacks valuable nutrients. You enjoy the chips but they also leave you feeling kind of empty at the end.

In theory, this had a good ending, but the journey was quite disappointing.

Just as with the first two books, I was compelled to keep reading so I would see how it would all wrap up. But so many things didn't make any sense in this book. The plot is disjointed or poorly planned. The way Laurent gets captured at Fortaine but manages to free himself was too easy. It just took me out of the story. But I thought it must be a blip so I managed to suspend my disbelief to move along with the story. But when Jokaste made an appearance I couldn't ignore the glaring inconsistencies and it went downhill from there. So many other plot points were wrapped up too glaringly convenient:- the troop strolling through Akeilos like they were headed for a picnic, them not being caught up in the cloth merchant lie;- Jokaste doing a 180 and saying the child was Kator's;- Laurent not telling Damen about this and moving forward with the "exchange" at Kingsmeet;- implying they could actually know for sure who's kid it was when it could have been either Damen's or Kastor's because Jokaste was sleeping with both brothers during the same period of time;- the Regent not killing Damen on the spot because Laurent had "surrendered" himself. The Regent could literally kill Damen and arrest Laurent for Council trial, it's not like Laurent had any leverage or the Regent any scruples. - the trial was also the most anticlimatic ever with the Regent accusing Laurent and Damen and the other way around. And the resolution is someone's wife's testimony and a healer keeping a critical piece of info for himself until the very last second, after which the council does a 180 and is like "Laurent, our bad, you are our true King." What?The entire plot felt pretty low stakes compared to the first two. The whole I-killed-your-brother-but-we're-sleeping-together felt also pretty much unresolved. I still didn't buy Damen and Laurent being in love and it's the finale. Also, the book ends before they are instated as Kings so we could not see them banning slavery or how they dealt with their relationship outside of the conflict that brought them together. I know this wasn't the main purpose of the book but since I still wasn't that into "Daurent", the story just lost its shine.

This sequel has the same compelled-to-finish feeling as the first one.

The first book ended with the cliffhanger that the Regent was trying to kill Laurent and if succeeded he would go after Akeilos next. So Damen and Laurent are forced to work together to prevent that. It was a great chance of scenery having them headed towards the frontier and out of the court and shifting the focus on tactical moves on war prevention and camaraderie. The inclusion of the neighboring kingdoms was also very welcome. Although some of the twists and turns were a little disjointed, the overall plot was pretty engaging.

I guess I liked the progress in their relationship, overall, although I would have appreciated it even more development. They didn't interact enough to justify their newly acquired super closeness, for my taste. I could barely detect any chemistry between them so when they finally got together (all consensual, thankfully) it felt pretty jarring and sudden even though it's been two books in the making. I feel like they are more of a bromance than anything else. I can see them go from enemies to friends but I don't buy the enemies to lovers part. I'm still invested in how their stories will all end, I just don't see them as a couple. I've read books with barely a touch between the characters and there was so much chemistry and tension you could cut it with a knife. But here, there was still a coldness between them despite being intimate physically (besides the big elephant in the room aka Damen killed Laurent's brother). I don't know, maybe I'm asking too much from a book in this genre.

This book series is a weird choice for me considering all the trigger warnings. I've been curious about it ever since its glory days when it was really popular and I thought I can always DNF it if it gets too much.

I don't like to read explicit scenes in books, most are usually cringy to super cringy. Even more so, non-consensual events are revolting. Which is why I had to fast-forward through the questionable scenes in this book. Luckily there were not that many, despite the overall atmosphere in these kingdoms.

But the overall plot was intriguing. I was pulled into finding out how things would wrap up for Damen (Damianos) who suffered one of the most frightening fates imaginable. As a future King to be, his throne was usurped by his brother who came from his father's illegitimate relationship, he gets captured and sent as a “gift” to the neighboring Kingdom, Vere.

We soon find out that Vere is a very effed up place. Which is where I would have handled things differently. The whole "pets" angle was unnecessary. For many reasons. For example, the context of Damen and Laurent's relationship would have been less repulsive. I don't get why it was needed to gross out the reader by having a kingdom where individuals lived in constant fear of being molested or raped. There could have been tension around Damen's situation without all of that. Vere could have still had the characteristic that they permitted extramarital affairs but because they were so obsessed with not having illegitimate children they allowed taking lovers only of the same sex. The context of the "pets" in Vere was also contradictory. In some parts, they were described as slaves in others they were described as "employed" meaning they got money and status out of it. The whole slavery subplot was kinda poorly done, in general, in this series. On one hand, it was shown that the "pets" and slaves were subjected to abhorrent treatment, abuses, and on the other hand, it was implied that it could be a joyous thing when presented with a good "master", see Erasmus's chapter and Damen's thoughts in the beginning. Nicaise was also used to villanize Laurent's uncle but the Regent was never directly confronted about being a pedophile. I would have preferred a more clear cut approach to denouncing the detestable practices in these kinddoms. In a way, I do understand the choice of having Vere, Akielos, and the others like this because the intention was to build on the fact that Laurent was a better man than the rest and that he was the right choice for King. Because when everyone there enjoyed being a pervert with all the "pet" and slave lifestyle, he personally did not keep or use a slave until he was "gifted" Damon. It's implied he does not support this practice. But he "keeps" Damen with him for a reason we find out in later books. He also did not personally do anything to Damen but at the same time, he does have one of the court "pets" do it so it's just as bad. That scene did not need to happen. It was never addressed and it just taints their relationship way more than the lashing does. The image of the "potentially better man Laurent" is in total contrast with the Laurent present in this first book. Because in this first book you can't see how Laurent could ever become redeemable. He's beautiful, smart, cunning but ruthless. He has Damen flayed by having him receive lashes until the brink of death. His intention is really to kill Damen (because of reasons that will be revealed later on, in case it's not obvious already) but he survives by miracle or well, plot convenience. But besides that, something even worse happens. He has one of the "pets" molest Damen, non-consensual engagement is still rape. So it's nearly impossible to see how he can come back from that. Other readers have complained about the lack of romance in this book but I was thankful because I don't want to see romance when this is so fresh in my mind. Let's face if it were real life and Laurent and Damen were real people I would never ship them no matter how much atoning was happening in the future. In the context of Vere and Akeilos, I could see it, maybe. The one compelling aspect was Damen's fate, from the beginning. He was the force that kept me going to find out how things will wrap up for him. Betrayed by his brother, with everybody but the traitors believing he was dead and shipped off to be a slave by non-other than the future King of the neighboring Kindom, whose brother he had killed on the battlefield. So not only did he have to live stripped of his former life but also in fear Laurent would discover who he is and that he killed his brother which will lead him promptly to execution. He also felt guilty about Auguste's death which made him too compliant for my taste. Laurent's treatment of him is very inconsistent, at times abominable, at times quite humane which is a choice.Their relationship takes a turn when there's an attempt of murder on Laurent and Damen saved him even though he had no reasons to. It might be his principles, it might be his guilt, but he saves him. Laurent also saves Damen back when they try to pin the attack on him and there's an understanding that maybe they can rely on each other when things go awry. Damen is also a gray area character. On one hand, he was naive enough to not see the danger coming from his brother because he cares for and looks up to Kastor, he gets involved and tries to improve the life of some of the slaves, once he's in Vere, he saves Laurent's life though it's not clear that it's not in self-interest, he refuses to participate in the rape of Govart when he wins on the ring during one of their disturbing games. On the other hand, he doesn't think that the kind of slavery they have in Akielos is wrong until he becomes one of those slaves.

So I'm torn about this book. It did have elements that are hard to digest but it also had a gripping political plot with high stakes and some intriguing characters. Even though I enjoyed the plot and characters overall, I still can't ignore the shady aspects of this book, it did prevent me from complete immersion in the story.