The False Prince: A Close-Up Review

"THE FALSE PRINCE is the thrilling first book in a brand-new trilogy filled with danger and deceit and hidden identities that will have readers rushing breathlessly to the end.

In a discontent kingdom, civil war is brewing. To unify the divided people, Conner, a nobleman of the court, devises a cunning plan to find an impersonator of the king's long-lost son and install him as a puppet prince. Four orphans are recruited to compete for the role, including a defiant boy named Sage. Sage knows that Conner's motives are more than questionable, yet his life balances on a sword's point -- he must be chosen to play the prince or he will certainly be killed. But Sage's rivals have their own agendas as well.

As Sage moves from a rundown orphanage to Conner's sumptuous palace, layer upon layer of treachery and deceit unfold, until finally, a truth is revealed that, in the end, may very well prove more dangerous than all of the lies taken together.

An extraordinary adventure filled with danger and action, lies and deadly truths that will have readers clinging to the edge of their seats." (from Goodreads)

The False Prince by Jennifer A. Nielsen

Characters:

Sage: he has an inviting, appealing sort of voice. He's clever and self-assured but not overly cocky, with a good sense of both justice and compassion. He doesn't like to kill people unnecessarily; he tends to show mercy rather than being vindictive. Ultimately, he's disarmingly likeable.

That said, one of my biggest gripes with this book is its use of the unreliable narrator technique. This is a technique that can easily rub me the wrong way, as I have said before. I have certainly seen it employed effectively, but all too often it just frustrates me unbelievably. Unfortunately, The False Prince falls into the latter category. I can certainly see from an objective standpoint why the author chose to use this technique, but it meant we were left not understanding a lot of what Sage was doing, even though Sage was the one telling the story. The implicit trust the reader has that they are receiving the true version of the story — or at least, the way the narrator sees it — is ruined when you find out that the narrator is keeping things from you. Major spoilers, highlight to read: Like that gold rock! It just came out of nowhere and really confused me. And the reason that Sage is sneaking out all the time. Not to mention stealing the sword. Oh, and the fact that HE IS THE LOST PRINCE. 

The villains: I didn't think any of the baddies were that bad in here, erring on the side of comic villains. A couple were despicable, but didn't scare me, and another was just pretty ridiculous. Hopefully in future books the villains will be nastier and more ruthless — villains to strike fear into your heart! In this book, it felt like Sage had the situation pretty much under control, and that nothing too terrible was going to happen.

Imogen: I wish Imogen had played a bigger role in helping/saving people. Mostly she just nurses Sage's wounds and gives him a shoulder to cry on, metaphorically speaking. I think there's more that could be done with her character. Her status as a young female servant in this setting makes her more vulnerable than some of the other characters, but I still think she came off a little too weak and passive. I'd like to be shown that she too is smart, and can fight for herself and what she wants.

Amarinda: I feel like we've only tapped the surface of her character in this book. I like that she, in contrast to Imogen, seems to better know what she wants. She's been brought up to think people will obey her, so she has more of a presence and commanding voice. Amarinda is so sure of herself, poised and calm — what she wants to get done is what happens. Of course, along with this she comes across as a bit conceited and snobby, too used to getting her own way — but hopefully this will change.

Premise/plot:

The False Prince is a good representation of traditional YA fantasy for younger readers. Many of the typical archetypes and familiar elements of the genre are present — a crown in danger, scheming lords, a competition...

I found the middle chunk of the book somewhat boring and repetitive; it could have used more action. Instead, similar conversations are had multiple times with different characters. None of the boys trust each other (hardly surprising, given they're being pitted against each other in a do-or-die situation) and there's plenty of backstabbing and showing off that goes on. A lot of the conversations are filled with empty threats, bluffing, and meaningless posturing that I feel could have been cut down or taken out, since it reads like filler. We don't actually see much of the training beyond a bit of sword practice and horse riding.

I have to give credit to the author, though, for clever plotting — small, seemingly insignificant details thrown in casually during the beginning and middle sections become more important towards the end. Sometimes authors seem to forget about thoughtful plotting and just pull a rabbit out of a hat to tie things up, so I always appreciate when it's clear the author has planned the storyline carefully. Given the unreliable narrator factor, I suspect this is one of those books that makes more sense when you read it a second time.

Writing style:

It's very readable and engaging, not weighed down with dense prose. There's quite a bit of dialogue (some which could have been cut, as I mentioned before). 

Final verdict: 3.5 shooting stars. This first book really just seems to set up the rest of the series. It was enjoyable enough, but I don't think it has the "wow" factor that some readers think it has.

Second Chance Summer: Vlog Review

I thought I'd try something a bit different and do a video review for a change! Here are my thoughts on Morgan Matson's Second Chance Summer, in vlog format (apologies in advance for the weird sort of white noise in the background):




If you'd like to check out the blog post on unreliable narrators that I mention, you can do so here.

Rants & Raves: You LIED to Me?

This is a feature that appears sporadically on the blog, whenever I have a bookish issue I need to rant or rave about. Feel free to comment with your thoughts!

Suppose I was telling you a story. Suppose I said,

"Once upon a time, there lived a young girl with hair black as coal, skin white as snow, and lips red as apples. She lived with a wicked step-mother who happened to be queen of all the land, and one day the step-mother discovered that her step-daughter had surpassed her in beauty. So the step-mother sent her huntsman to rip out the young girl's heart. But instead the huntsman let her go, and the young girl ran away and stumbled onto a small dwelling where there lived seven vertically-challenged men." 

And then I asked you to tell me what fairy tale this was.

Well, naturally, you'd respond, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves," right?

And then suppose I went, "Hah! I lied. This isn't about a young girl with hair black as coal who finds herself keeping house for seven small men. No! It's actually about a young girl with hair bright as gold, who finds herself falling asleep in a house belonging to three bears. Fooled you!"

You'd be a little annoyed, wouldn't you? You might say, "That wasn't a fair guessing-game, you gave me all the wrong information! That doesn't count! You cheated."

Yeah, you'd be right. I totally cheated. And that's how I feel every time an author pulls a similar stunt with the narrative of their story.

This is one reason unreliable narrators are so difficult to pull off. Because to the reader, it feels like a deception, perhaps even a betrayal. Readers take what they're told at face value most of the time. I've heard it described kind of like an unwritten contract between the reader and the storyteller: you're going to tell me something fantastical, and I'm going to go along with it. You can't immerse yourself in the story if you're questioning the truth of every word on the page.

So when all of a sudden, the writer informs you that, Whoops! Actually that's not at all what happened, it can feel as though your trust in them has been violated. You think to yourself, "Well if they lied to me before, what's to say they won't do it again? How much of what they're telling me is the truth, and how much is just more lies?"

And really, that's no way to go about reading a story.

I find unreliable narrators particularly odious when they are used in mysteries. Because in mysteries, the whole point is for the reader to try to solve it, to piece together the puzzle before the characters do. And how can you possibly do that if the narrator is withholding information from you (or worse, giving you false information)? Say you're told that the protagonist is going to be interrogating a suspect and you know this will lead to a very important clue...and then the protagonist doesn't mention the outcome of this interrogation. All they'll say is, "I'd learned something that took my breath away. And now I knew where to place the blame." You'd be a little ticked off, wouldn't you?

The way I see it, this is just not playing fair. It's sort of a quick-and-dirty method of stringing the reader along so that when the big reveal happens, they'll be surprised.

Well, OF COURSE they'll be surprised. You didn't give them enough information to have them be anything other than surprised! (And annoyed, frustrated, and just about ready to throw in the towel, but I digress.) I'd say this is a very poor use of the unreliable narrator technique. It's a way to cover up sloppy mystery writing, and frankly, it's a bit of an insult to a reader's intelligence. Good mysteries are difficult to guess because the clues are so clever or well-hidden, not because you've flat-out lied to the reader or conveniently "forgotten" to mention something.

A distinction should certainly be drawn between playing on a reader's assumptions — which is perfectly acceptable, and indeed can be a very crafty way of fooling the reader — and outright lying to them (either by giving false information or by omission). And there are certain circumstances where unreliable narration can be used to good effect. It may be very important in revealing something about a character's personality or mental health (for instance, in All You Never Wanted by Adele Griffin or Holding On To Zoe by George Ella Lyon.)

But using it as a plot device to keep the reader turning the pages? In my opinion, it's a cheap trick.

Rely on your writing talent to create a diverting, suspenseful, twisty read. Don't rely on a technique that will only try the reader's patience. You might just find that they run out of it before they finish the book.

In which case, your "big reveal" will all be for nothing, anyway. Meanwhile, your reader will be reacting like this:



Tell me truthfully, now: is that really what you want?

 

Holding on to Zoe: A Psychtember Review

Patient: Holding on to Zoe by George Ella Lyon

Presentation (from Goodreads):  
"After sixteen-year-old Jules has her baby, Zoe, it doesn’t matter anymore that her mother thinks she’s a drama queen, or that her father left them years ago, or even that Zoe’s father is gone, too. She and her baby make a family now; she doesn’t need anyone else in the world except Zoe. Though it's tough being a new mom, balancing Zoe’s needs with working at the Toyota factory and thinking about how to finish school, Jules is sure she’ll figure it out. Still, she wonders, why can’t anyone be happy for her and Zoe? And why does her mom refuse to believe that Zoe's real?"

*Note: there are huge spoilers discussed in the Axis 4 section of this review, so if you wish to avoid spoilers don't read that part!

Assessment:

Axis 1. Characters

There's just a small cast of characters in this book, with the focus primarily on Jules. If you like unreliable narrators, you'll probably like Jules, because she's about as unreliable as they get. We get such a skewed viewpoint from Jules that we don't know exactly what's true and what's not — although this would have been even more the case, and thus more mystifying and unsettling, if the back cover description didn't give so much away. 

Jules' mom is the complete opposite of helpful, and deserves to be in the running for the Most Annoying and Neglectful Mom of the Year. She keeps pushing Jules when her daughter is obviously having trouble, and she never believes her, which frustrated the heck out of me. Really, it's depressing that she just doesn't seem to care that much about Jules.

 

Axis 2. Premise/plot

This is a short, character-driven book. It's almost like a character study of someone who develops psychosis— their reactions, behaviour, mindset — written for the YA crowd. As I mentioned above, I think the back of the book gives away too much of the plot, and it would have been more surprising if I had known less about it going in.

Axis 3. Writing Style

The writing is simple and minimalist, bringing to mind the bare-boned structure of a play. It flips back and forth between the present and the past (doing so without warning, which is a little confusing).

Axis 4. Psychological Accuracy

There are MAJOR spoilers here (sorry, it's pretty much impossible to avoid them and still assess this book's psychological accuracy!). You have been warned.

The "teen girl gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby" storyline has been done many times before, but the way Jules reacts is different than what we usually see. In her case, the conditions (trauma in the past, father gone, mother as a poor support system) are right for pregnancy to act as a trigger for psychosis. It's a little unnerving that someone can have such a completely different take on reality than most of us, but I had to feel bad for her because she wants a baby so badly that she basically won't let anything else enter her head. While I found it difficult to feel close to her, the fact that she's delusional is not alienating; the reader will not have trouble hoping that Jules will get help. Jules' voice sounds very young for her age — more like 13 or 14 than 16 — but this might be due in part to her mental state; it certainly works to convey her naivete and obvious need for help.   

It's told in 1st-person POV, so the reader is placed fully in Jules' mind, and it becomes obvious how her perception of her environment has been contorted to reflect this inner reality she's crafted, so that everything makes sense within this delusion of hers. She displays the symptoms of hallucination (she sees a bunch of socks tied together as a baby) and delusion (she believes she has a baby), and her level of social functioning has certainly declined as well. Jules also shows a few signs of atypical cognitive functioning — she seems to talk back and forth with herself, and she sometimes uses word association. These are perhaps indicative of thought disorder (which can be a symptom of schizophrenia), although they're not a defining feature of her presentation. Depending on how long she has been having trouble, she would probably be diagnosed with either schizophreniform disorder (more than a month but less than 6 months) or schizophrenia (over 6 months). It's difficult to tell how long she's been exhibiting symptoms since the story jumps around a bit in time. I suspect the most likely subtype Jules would fall under would be undifferentiated schizophrenia; she's a little bit edgy about how other people view Zoe, but I don't think it's enough to qualify her for paranoid subtype.

As for the therapy, I'm not certain which theoretical orientation Emma uses. She asks a lot of questions, and uses some unusual techniques to connect with Jules, but almost seems to operate from a psychodynamic understanding in some respects — the significance she places on memories, for example. I didn't buy the "breakthrough" that Jules has; the unlocking of her memories and subsequent destruction of her delusion happens too quickly and easily to be believable. 

That said, the actual explanation for her developing psychosis — that she was sexually abused in childhood — is plausible, as there does seem to be a connection between the two. I suspect we're meant to take a Freudian interpretation of it: Zoe representing Jules' "inner child" who was abused, and Jules now wanting to protect that little girl. I'm very dubious, however, about the sudden disappearance of Jules' delusion from nothing more than retrieval of repressed memories. "Recovered" memories are a tricky business, seeing as therapists can influence clients to "remember" something that never actually happened. In any case, I would suspect a longer relationship with the therapist would be needed before Jules felt comfortable enough to let herself access these memories. While it's a good sign that Emma is able to create a positive, trusting relationship with Jules, the whole thing still happens rather quickly.

Furthermore, I'd like to better understand the role the medication played here. There are a few brief mentions of pills Jules takes (she believes they're vitamin pills) but I'd really like to know more details. Anti-psychotics are one of the primary methods of treatment for psychosis, and yet they seem to provide Jules with very little benefit. Jules' recovery is quite obviously attributed to the memory retrieval, but in real life I suspect the anti-psychotics would be far more effective.

Validity Score: How psychologically accurate was Holding on to Zoe?

Patient shares symptoms with: Without Tess by Marcella Pixley

Patient's statement:

I will never let anything bad happen to Zoe. No one will hurt or scare her; she'll never be hungry, afraid, or alone. Not while I'm alive. I sat in that day care one whole day watching everything Mrs. Jamieson did before I agreed to leave Zoe there. I know what she's fed, how often she's changed, what they do at nap time. I know Allie and Mary Jane and Glenda, who also work there, and they know I'm paying attention. There's a lot in this world that would gobble little girls up. Dark places in every neighborhood. Most parents don't see, but I see. That's my job. 

Diagnosis: 3.5 shooting stars.

For more information about schizophrenia, see here.

Disclaimer: I received this book as an ARC for review from the publisher. 

This book counts toward my goal for the Just Contemporary reading challenge.