Review: An odd mix of good and bad
Rating: 2 out of 5
Date: 04 28, 2014
This book popped up as a recommendation based on my other purchases. I read the blurb and it sounded pretty interesting. The start seemed promising, but the more I read the more I lost interest.Good point first: Day was described either in the blurb or in the early pages as 'witty'. I know it's a silly thing to pay so much attention to, but in my reading experience, when a character is described as 'witty', it usually means they make inane comments that the surrounding narrative has to bend over backwards to accommodate. Not so here. Day is actually pretty funny. Some of the banter between him and, particularly, Ronowski is very amusing.And now to (some of) the bad points: ****SPOILER WARNING****a) This work is in dire need of editing. There is a distracting amount of word errors (their/they're, piece/peace, etc.) and spelling mistakes, the pacing is off, some plot turns are nonsensical and illogical, there is an extraordinary amount of material included in this book that is completely irrelevant for the plot.b) The characterisation is shallow. Yes, I do get a sense of who Day and God are, but there is a lot of telling and very little showing. With some books (the Cut & Run series being a good example), I'm willing to forgive a lot (descriptions of police work that bears no semblance whatsoever with reality, for instance) just because I fall in love with the characters. There is nothing to fall in love with here. The characters are types rather than fleshed-out, three-dimensional people. I can no more fall in love with God than I can with a picture in a magazine.c) Cashel Godfrey could easily have been nicknamed 'Cash' - and is indeed referred to as 'Cash' on a few occasions - but instead the author has chosen to call him God, even outside of the dialogue. Despite the impression one might get from my reading habits, I'm a religious person and reading explicit sex scenes in which one of the protagonists is called God makes my blasphemy sense tingle. Outside of my personal religious sentiments, I think that the nickname is distracting and it should only have been allowed in the text if it served some particular purpose.d) There is essentially no conflict anywhere. Problems, both professional and personal, are solved quickly and mostly without any fuss. When God and Day realise their mutual attraction, they act on it and they love each other. No problem there. When God's family learn why he killed his stepfather, they instantly forgive him and he them. No bitterness anywhere in sight. Ronowski has been a homophobic bully for five years (disciplinary procedures, where are you?) and Day has in turn ribbed him for being in the closet. After a gentle nudge, Ronowski jumps into a relationship with another man, admits Day was right and even goes to the man for sex advice. The quick solving of problems doesn't even seem to further the plot much, it just paves the way for the characters to have sex.e) And on that note: I was not expecting the foursome. I find the explanation that foursomes are somehow an innate part of gay relationships offensive (Day telling God that, "Johnson is gay so he may already know, but some gay couples do play with other couples."). I'm also a firm believer in the idea that if it doesn't advance the story you're telling, it has no place in the narrative. Erotic fiction is no exception to this. What purpose does the foursome serve beyond being, supposedly, hot?I can't in good conscience recommend this book. I bought another one of Ms. Via's books at the same time because I was stocking up on reading material, and I hesitate to read it. I won't say that I'm categorically giving up on this author, but I wish for more maturity in the writing and the evidence of an editor's touch.