A Court of Thorns and Roses Collector's Edition Hardcover – November 5, 2019

I bought the trilogy. All together they were the best books I've read in a while. Separately, they were not perfect but I'm okay with that. I read a lot and tend to dislike books that show no character growth, or have wishy-washy villains, or have insta-love, or have love result from H saving h from sexual violation, or suffer from deus ex machina. I don't particularly care if something is obvious because sometimes I want to read something that is easy and obvious. My brain doesn't want to be challenged 24/7. Also, I love good dialogue- dialogue makes a romantic connection feel real rather than insta-lovey. Is dialogue action-packed? No. Does it slow down pacing? You bet. At this point, you're probably wondering where this review is going? Well, I think that knowing more about me as a reader might make it easier to see/ relate to my views for this book.Now the fun stuff! ***SPOILERS***Feyre (the h):This character is complex and goes through several changes throughout the series. In this book, she has her ups and downs. Initially, she is hardened, street-smart and capable with a cynical eye toward romance and happiness and outright hatred and prejudice towards the fae. She also has love for a family who seems to dislike and neglect her. She is not very likeable. But does that make a book bad? No. (Hello, Wuthering Heights.) It is, however, more rare to write an h this way because readers in general tend to want to relate to an h, particularly when it's written in 1st person perspective. So many readers might not be able to get into the story because of their dislike for Feyre. When the far remove her burdens that largely drove who she was, Feyre changes. She doesn't have a purpose to keep her going, to shape her. The pacing of the book suffers a bit here while she tries to sort herself out. She tries to make love and painting her new purposes, and while she has the determination to do so, the fit just isn't right. Does this make the book bad? No. While many people won't like to read about an h that seems somehow "less" this downward arc was necessary to fuel the inevitable reversal toward a more fitting purpose. It drags a bit for sure, but makes the reversal feel more right, more true later on. Did she rush into something with Tamlin. Her feelings do feel a bit rushed but ultimately fit her as a character- going all-in has always been her style from the start. In that sense, the character is consistent. Also, her reluctance to voice her love made me think that deep-down she might have confused love with gratitude. Tamlin was her savior in many ways. For all of these reasons I liked Feyre.Tamlin (the H):Tamlin was the 1st high fae Feyre had any meaningful interactions with in the 1st book. I never really liked him as an H. He was pretty but basically hollow. He struggles with uncontrolled rage. He had just as much hatred for humans as Feyre did for fae, and his elitist attitude was hinted at throughout this book (though not substantiated until book 2). He also adheres to fae tradition in weird ways- his willing participation in the Fire Night ritual is distasteful because it borders on infidelity (especially since we later learn in book 2 that he can designate a replacement). Tamlin has from the beginning been primarily focused on Tamlin. When things get tough, he sends Feyre away; he doesn't consult or listen to her, but just decides, hinting at his desire to treat her like a possession rather than a person. When he gets a moment of freedom under the mountain he attempts to have sex with Feyre (his wants) instead of trying to escape with or save her (her needs). When Feyre is dying, he can only bring himself to beg for her life, he isn't moved into action. All of these things hint that Tamlin is not a good fit for Feyre. Many readers will not like to read about an H that is so lacking/ ill-fitted. The beautiful part is that these things are only ever hinted at in the writing, not outright stated so you will want to root for Tamlin while also feeling something inexplicably lacking in him. I thought about it lots before I picked up book 2, where my thoughts regarding Tamlin were cemented. Tamlin could not have been written more likeable though. If he was the perfect H then Feyre falling for Rhys in book 2 would have felt like a betrayal, instead of fated, and then Feyre would've been worse than unlikable but detestable as an h.Lucian:A secondary character who is both interesting and flawed. He hates Feyre at first, but ultimately warms up to her. He is loyal to a fault, siding with Tamlin over and again, even when he thinks it is wrong to do so. A trait that becomes more obvious as the series progresses. Lucian has potential.Rhysand (villain/other H):Rhysand was the most interesting character in the book (although Nesta was a close second). Rhys was the evil queen's right-hand man. He has done terrible things. Yet, when we meet him (not my favorite bit of the book because of the gross circumstances I do not favor, as mentioned above) there is evidence that he is not all that he seems. He appeared to be interested in Feyre romantically, but the "why" part is not there. Also, it is not 100% certain WHAT drives his actions. He is a mystery. Why did he decide to help her time and again? Why, if he likes her did he decide to put her through nightly humiliation? Why use her to torment Tamlin? He is clearly not 100% a good guy. He is complex.Other things people often talk about:The sex. There is a lot more sex in this book than in other "YA" books. It seems like that has somehow lead to some amount of controversy. I find that notion very strange as many eons ago when I was a teen, sex was a big part of being a teen- whether or not to have it, who had it, when they had it where and how, what type of birth control to use, etc. Suggestions that a book would have any type of influence on those things are just silly. Teens have sex. It's a fact. Wishing it otherwise does nothing productive. Also, the sex in this series is not "explicit." Every time I see this adjective used, it makes me laugh. I have read many romances and even some erotica. If you truly want something "explicit" check out erotica- phrases like "the apex of my thighs" or the "the length of him" are not "explicit."The copious dialogue. Lots of readers don't like the extended dialogue and also wish to have seen more of the fae world. I am just guessing here, but I am thinking that they are meaning that they wanted less talk and more fairy magic. But, fae are known for more than just their magic. Another key attribute of fae has to do with their words- being able to only speak in rhyme, only speak the truth, answer any question posed, etc. This attribute can be very interesting (see Mortal Instruments series or Dresden Files). And indeed it was put to use throughout the series, sometimes well done other times much too dues ex machina for my liking. Dialogue can be a type of action when done well enough. In this book, it probably could've been better but was good enough for me.The Fire Night and rape culture. Honestly, I am bothered by this one. I am never fond of rape or sexual violence as a plot device which is why I tend to avoid historical romances almost entirely. In this book, I think the Fire Nite ritual was used in part explain a bit about fae magic and in part to push forward the Feyre-Tamlin relationship while introducing Rhys. I think it both went too far and not far enough. Tamlin's participation cheapens his feelings toward Feyre, just imagine someone saying, "I love you, truly, but I need to go have sex with someone else." And then he came back to Feyre AFTER HAVING SEX WITH SOMEONE ELSE, and bit her to clearly show his possession of her. It doesn't sit well, does it? Additionally, the three fae with bad intentions suggest to Feyre that fae tradition gives them the right to violate her just because she is present. That makes all fae seem brutal and detestable. Thus, it goes too far. But, what about the converse? The Fire Night ritual is supposed to be necessary to ensure the bounty of the land for the next year. But, the spring court is the only court that has/ observes this ritual en mass? That does not really make sense to me. The need for this ritual, especially considering mated bonds are a rare and extremely valued thing, is not properly explained. It really could've been omitted from the book and is one of the few things about the book that I truly did not like.The masks. Some people like them, some don't. The reason given for them was that they were yet another obstacle to a human girl falling in love with Tamlin. I really didn't mind them but I did not like Feyre's reaction to the removal of the masks. While it was consistent with her character (she always had an eye for pretty guys), I thought that it cheapened her character to have her feel relieved that Tamlin was so pretty without his mask. It was very superficial, and further proof that there wasn't much of substance to their "love."While book 1 is my least favorite of the series, I still really liked it and will definitely re-read it again. Books 2 and 3 get even better and I am looking forward to further writings as well. Hopefully we will get to see what happens to Nesta, Elaine, the 6th queen, and Bryaxis.

of my thoughts about this book and others here: http://bluedollarbill.blogspot.com/2015/05/time-for-another-book-review.htmlThis is what I get for reading so much YA fantasy, I suppose, instead of legit grown-up literary stuff. Most of the time, it doesn't quite live up to my expectations, but then when it exceeds them, it's just extraordinary. It's always a pleasure to lose yourself in another world, and it's a kind of exquisite joy to marvel at the flexibility and grace of someone else's imagination. Like watching a rhythmic gymnast.For a change of pace, I read Sarah J. Maas' A Court of Thorn and Roses, which I had preordered, based on my love for her Throne of Glass series and my fondness for the story of Tam Lin. Let's talk about Throne of Glass for a minute: Maas has a fairly cool story. She started writing this series as Queen of Glass on FictionPress when she was a teenager and finally got it published many years (and many revisions) later. It's supposed to be a riff on Cinderella, but only in the sense that Cinderella is the fairy tale that set the author's imagination wandering. The first book, Throne of Glass, grew on me. As a YA fantasy writer, Maas is not Laini Taylor or Maggie Stiefvater. Her sentences don't echo in my head, over and over, like a favorite song. But there is a delight to her characters and their relationships to each other, a sense of humor, sarcasm, witty, good-natured ribbing that washes over the reader like a cup of hot chocolate. Her characters (like Stiefvater's) feel like old friends. Her main character is a girl, an assassin, a voracious reader, who loves music, candy, and beautiful gowns, and manages to be both selfless and self-centered, able to revel to luxury and capable of surviving anything. It doesn't always quite add up - if you pause for too long - but stay immersed in Maas' world and it works.Also, they wear really awesome clothes. Maas uses Pinterest to good effect - the women, especially, are breathtakingly dressed and she does a fabulous job describing the fashion. On the downside, she does clearly have particular turns of phrase and descriptors she loves to use, and a LOT of people wear clothes that are "simple but obviously of very fine make." It's repetitious, yes, but mostly it just makes me jealous - why can't I find basic, high-quality clothes like white linen shirts that fit me flawlessly and "supple leather" boots than mold to my feet? (Cuyana, please make a few more things. And make the fit a little less unisex. Please.)For the most part, the plot of Throne of Glass (so far - there are three books out in a six- or seven-book series) works and the twists and turns are intriguing and satisfying. The back story is impressively well-developed. (It's so well-developed, in fact, that I hesitate to return to writing my own novel out of fear that I don't have the imagination to pull it off. Like J.K. Rowling, even the smallest details and introduction of apparently minor characters has major relevance for the plot.) There is a major plot hole in the second book - something that really never makes sense - but it's possible to overlook it and jump back into the flow of the story. Do you ever do that? Simply choose to pretend that your favorite author didn't actually mean what they wrote? As long the rest of the story makes sense without the problematic element, I do - all the time. Often, the problematic element is an illogical explanation for a supporting character's actions and I can imagine into place a more logical one. I reserve my greatest agonizing for books that are beautifully set up, with elegant words and fascinating characters, but where the illogical element ruins all the downstream events and the book collapses like a house of cards.Where are the editors, I wonder? I should be editing these books.A Court of Thorns and Roses doesn't quite collapse but it's on shaky ground. The main character never has the depth of the protagonist from Throne of Glass. She's less outlandish and yet less fully realized too - she seems like a mashup of Cinderella and Katniss from The Hunger Games. Both she and the male protagonist are so reserved and laconic that it's rather hard to get to know them, as the reader. That's okay - she still does a better job than most. I think magic is hard to work with, in a story - authors really have to know what the rules are, or readers will question why anything happens the way it does. The rules are perhaps not quite as well-defined in Court of Thorns and Roses as I'd like, but the real problem in the logic comes only in the last quarter of the book. (That's probably why I enjoyed it as much as I did.) Essentially, the last quarter introduces an intriguing antagonist of questionable loyalties but his loyalties aren't quite questionable enough - it's a mystery why the main antagonist lets him get away with playing for both sides as much as he does. Alas, when I'm faced with that kind of mystery, I usually conclude that the author knew where she wanted her story to go and didn't spend enough time thinking through how to get from point A to point B. And then I blame the editor for not being objective enough to see the problem. Because, at least in this case, it could have been written in a way that was more believable, less dependent on luck. And I would have liked it a lot more.The second problem is harder to describe without spoilers and, indeed, a long explanation of the plot. Essentially, it has to do with why one of the main characters is himself an obstacle to his own romance (which drives much of the plot). The reason makes sense, after the reader has spent some time thinking about it and turning it over and over in her mind. The problem is that the bits and pieces provided by the first-person limited narrator are barely sufficient to realize why he acts as does - and not sufficient to make it wholly believable. Does that make sense? Without nuance, if I were to summarize the plot for someone, this aspect of the plot, of character development and motivation, would make sense and seem quite powerful; but the book needed more richness and detail in this regard to make it "real on paper."Of course, NONE of this means that I'm not going to pre-order the next book in the trilogy (and mark the date on my calendar) as soon as it's available.