Leigh BardugoFiction · Fantasy·b. 1975
King of Scars
Synopsis
King Nikolai Lantsov has always been a survivor, but his past is catching up to him. With Ravka's borders threatened and his own dark magic growing, he must journey into the heart of his country's deepest magic to find a cure. Alongside a monk and a Grisha Squaller, Nikolai will confront the darkness within and fight for his kingdom and his soul. But some secrets refuse to stay buried, and some wounds never truly heal.
How it reads
Prose complexity 4/10
Content warnings (1)
Violence
- 2/5 (2,43/10) The book is infodumping after infodumping. It is supposed to be a story independent of the other stories by the author, that is, it is not the fourth or fifth part of a book, but the first part of Nikolai’s story, a “companion novel”, yes, but an independent story. Even though he was a secondary character in a previous work, his story is, or should be, independent of the rest. That is, it should not depend on any previous work. But it is not so. Not only the narrator, but also the characters, speak as if the reader had to have read 3 books - 4 books? - before. Nothing is understood, and those things that are explained are presented as dictionary entries. The author uses a lot of “tell don’t show”, and that, for me, determines that she is not a very good writer. But there are many other things that are not explained, for example, the first time she introduces Nina she keeps mentioning a certain Matthias. Who is he? Why is he so important to her? And why do they speak in her mind, if he's dead? Why should I know who he is if this is supposed to be a standalone story? And most of all, why should it matter? Nothing has happened in the story for me to feel attached to either Matthias or Nina. It just doesn't make sense. I feel like I'm reading the fourth part of a trilogy and obviously I'm not learning anything because I've started with the fourth book. It doesn't feel like the first part of anything. Another thing I don't like is that the author uses eccentric, made-up words to name something that already has a name, making those words unnecessary. For example: Why use “sankta” in the singular, but “saints” in the plural? Why use the word “kalfisk” instead of “calamari”? Why constantly add strange words in italics and immediately after add the normal meaning? Why constantly switch languages and use one we don't know? It's annoying and unnecessary. It's tiring and uncomfortable. It breaks the reading. Also, it's very noticeable that it was written for 13-year-olds. Not only in the characterization of the characters, but also in their personalities and dialogues. The way of speaking is not serious, but childish. And that is very out of place with the political plot that the author wants to introduce, but fails miserably. The problem is that politics is something for adults, not for children. And here we see politics led by children. What could go wrong? Everything. The characters are supposed to be involved in politics, but they behave like teenagers. All the characters are horrible, especially Nikolai, Nina and Zoya. Let's start with Nikolai. He's not a king. He doesn't feel like one, he's more like a leader of a gang of criminals who live in the woods, like Robin Hood. He's a 13-year-old boy who says "if I were king I would make candy free." Nothing about him says "king." He doesn’t impose, he even allows his people to treat him like a colleague rather than a king. It’s absurd. Nina. What the hell is her goal? It has nothing to do with Nikolai’s. She does what she wants when she wants and, despite being selfish, we are supposed to love her because “oh my god, she suffers so much for the loss of her beloved” that we don’t even know who he is or why we should care. She even goes so far as to change physically to see if her heart would change too. What? That’s a s••••• message, Leigh. And then there’s Zoya, the “strong and independent girl who is not like other girls.” You are talking to your king, not your friend. You are a soldier. Act like one. Zoya is the example of how not to create a female soldier. They contradict themselves in a matter of seconds! They are not in a royal palace, they are in the woods around a campfire thinking about their ideal world like little children. The only salvageable and rational characters are Adrik, Leoni and Isaak. Spoilers ahead: The plot of the story. What is it? There isn't one. More than half of the story, Nikolai spends his time with his inventions, Zoya spends his time looking for a wife for Nikolai, Nina, instead of doing her job, spends her time crying for Matthias and trying to help some people in a factory despite, I repeat, having a mission, an order from her king, which she is not fulfilling. And, poor Isaak, they have him to pretend to be the king. There is no plot as such. There are four small plots that have nothing to do with each other put in the same book. The only thing worth saving in the book is Isaak. And she go and kills him. Horrible. Nothing, giving it 2 stars is being generous, but only for Isaak. Isaak deserves that and more, but everything else in the book is horrible, so I can't give it a higher score. In my opinion, it is clear that the author does not know how to deal with adult or political issues. The way she deals with things is with that veil of adolescent idealism that does not represent reality, both in the plot and in the dialogues. And yes, even though it is fiction, it should have a certain logics. Leigh had a very clear idea of what she wanted to write, but she did not know how to structure it or present it well. Themes are mixed at the worst possible moments and the transitions from one topic to another, and even from one character to another, are not coherent or organic. Horrible reading.
- Decent continuation of the grishaverse. Very well executed and Leigh definitely had a better time writing this series than Shadow and Bone. Only thing is Nina did annoy me a bit at some points in this book