Scan barcode
A review by clarareadsbooks
The Traitor's Game by Jennifer A. Nielsen
Did not finish book.
2.0
DNFing this book hurt because I wanted to like it so badly.
Multiple perspectives can be hard to do, and in this case, it really did not work. I found the voices of Simon and Kestra nearly indistinguishable. They spoke the same and thought the same (save for initial political disagreements). It also took away from the mystery and uncertainty the main characters should be feeling. Within the first couple of chapters, you know exactly what's happening 100% of the time because it switches POV's so frequently, often within the same situation. There is no "what's he thinking" or "what's gonna happen" because you know exactly what each side of the same story sees/thinks. It made the book almost boring because you weren't second-guessing the motives of the character (Simon) whose POV frankly should have been omitted.
The whole enemies to lovers trope also does not really apply here because they get over their initial hatred of one another almost immediately (literally within four days, and within a few hours if you count an incident that happens the evening of their initial meeting). Given the history that went on between the two main characters, you would expect it to take more than four days for those feelings to be put aside. It felt too quick and there was no real build-up. It felt like the author was going for the "we have a dark history but you don't remember me" trope, but they recognize one another almost right away. And thus there's no real angst or hatred we see built between the characters so that we can watch that angst and hatred turn into something else.
There were still aspects to this book I liked, I enjoyed the world-building and political situations, and I really enjoyed Kestra as a heroine. She was sassy, and witty and had tons of snark. As for Simon, I would have liked him if I wasn't reading his perspective, he would have been a better character (and been a lot more interesting and mysterious) if it had just been Kestra's perspective.
Multiple perspectives can be hard to do, and in this case, it really did not work. I found the voices of Simon and Kestra nearly indistinguishable. They spoke the same and thought the same (save for initial political disagreements). It also took away from the mystery and uncertainty the main characters should be feeling. Within the first couple of chapters, you know exactly what's happening 100% of the time because it switches POV's so frequently, often within the same situation. There is no "what's he thinking" or "what's gonna happen" because you know exactly what each side of the same story sees/thinks. It made the book almost boring because you weren't second-guessing the motives of the character (Simon) whose POV frankly should have been omitted.
The whole enemies to lovers trope also does not really apply here because they get over their initial hatred of one another almost immediately (literally within four days, and within a few hours if you count an incident that happens the evening of their initial meeting). Given the history that went on between the two main characters, you would expect it to take more than four days for those feelings to be put aside. It felt too quick and there was no real build-up. It felt like the author was going for the "we have a dark history but you don't remember me" trope, but they recognize one another almost right away. And thus there's no real angst or hatred we see built between the characters so that we can watch that angst and hatred turn into something else.
There were still aspects to this book I liked, I enjoyed the world-building and political situations, and I really enjoyed Kestra as a heroine. She was sassy, and witty and had tons of snark. As for Simon, I would have liked him if I wasn't reading his perspective, he would have been a better character (and been a lot more interesting and mysterious) if it had just been Kestra's perspective.