Characters play a crucial role in shaping the success of a story, despite what some may argue. While they might sometimes adhere to familiar archetypes, it is essential that they are, at the very least, tolerable. Regrettably, “Justice of the Kings” is narrated through the perspective of Helena Sedanka, a character who genuinely irked me a great deal.
I can tolerate arrogant characters; I managed to tolerate Nynaeve and Kvothe because, in my opinion, they are well-written and possess at least a few likable qualities. However, reading through Helena Sedanka’s perspective was a different experience. It felt like the epitome of a male adult’s writing a teenage girl.
This girl, who grew up in a harsh environment, behaves as if she’s a pampered noble lord’s daughter. The entire love subplot made me roll my eyes – it’s crazy! I’ve never felt this way about a character before. She decides to leave the man who looked her as a father figure and provided her education all for a guy who barely knows her. This novel could have been significantly improved if it had focused less on a romance plot that unfolded rapidly and superficially. The story describes the characters falling in love without substantial communication or understanding of each other, even contemplating marriage.
And don’t even get me started on her constant whining and crying. She keeps emphasizing the difficult life she had before Konrad found her, so why does she complain and whine so much? There was even a point where she blindly trusted a shady woman, despite spending years on the streets and witnessing the deceitful nature of such individuals.If you establish a character who grew up in difficult circumstances, ensure that her portrayal doesn’t make her appear sheltered.
Despite being frequently described as intelligent by others, I personally struggled to perceive her as such, finding her actions to be less than intelligent and more akin to a ginger cat with 2 brain cells.The other characters in the story seemed to hold significant potential, yet their development feels stagnant, leaving the reader somewhat disappointed. It would have been nice if the story centered around Helena and Konrad, as their dynamic seemed interesting.
The mystery aspect of the plot, reminiscent of old detective novels, initially intrigued. However, there is a drawback as the reader can predict the unfolding events in 50 percent mark.
Another thing that bothered me is the word choice and writing decisions. Word choice is subjective so I wouldn’t dwell on it much but these writing decisions irked me.
*Her eyes kept that glassy stare, the spark of consciousness extinguished. She had been transformed, in a stroke, into a drooling simpleton.*
This is the way the author described someone who is brain dead. There is no need for author to refer a brain dead person as a drooling simpleton. It felt a bit albiest, but that is a person gripe of mine.
Having a narrator from the future telling the story can, in my opinion, diminish the suspense. It works well for “Kingkiller” because we are aware that the future narrator has faced something dreadful, and our concern is directed toward the people around him, those he and we care about.
Kvothe, the narrator in “Kingkiller,” skillfully avoids revealing crucial details. In contrast, Helena frequently discloses information that kills the suspense of who will live or who will die
2/5
Could use a goodreads friend in case anyone want to: [Link](https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/123115591-rajesh-ch)
by Great_Ad_5561