To start off, I certainly agree with the issue you took in regards to better proofreading. (Although this isn't nearly as bad as a number of other books I have read over my years in the fandom. In fact, there are some very esteemed furry authors out there (without naming names) whose books have considerably more typos than Mr. Aalto's. All that said, there is still no excuse for having those typos.)
But this is not why I wrote in.
I must say that I completely fail to understand your comments regarding the book's plot. You called it superficial and asked a number of questions, some of which were very palpably sarcastic. It seems to me that you have missed quite a few parts of the book where your questions would have been answered. The prince stayed behind because he was smart enough to realize that running would only be worse for him in the end. He talks about this in the very beginning, as I recall. He has no wish to help his father or to restore the kingdom. He just wants to find the king to get him to testify on his behalf. That's it. It is only later that he realizes how much his father means to him. On top of that, it is in his character. Adventure and danger arouse him. I believe this fact is mentioned in the very first chapter. Aside from that very explicit mention, remember how he talks to Saaron about his near-death experience? He does so with glee.
Similarly, there is a very good (and clever, in my opinion) reason for why a lot of Rivard's capers are so easy to pull. I won't reveal it here because I don't wish to spoil things, but it has a certain something to do with luring that young fox to a certain place.
You also appear to have missed a scene towards the end of the book where Rivard and his father have a heart to heart. Again, I don't wish to spoil much for those who haven't read, but there is a reason his father does not notice Rivard's frequent treks into the city.
I also see here that you question the prince's stamina. It's all in the youth, my friend. College was a long, long time ago for me, but I clearly recall being able to stay up all night at some party or another, tending to my girlfriend after said party, and then waking up for class at 8, only to rinse and repeat such events the very next night. I couldn't tell you where all that energy is now.
I wish to stress that I mean absolutely no offense by any of this, but nearly every question you have asked is spelled out quite clearly within the book. I understand you probably have to review these novels quickly, but not giving a title the justice it deserves is kind of unfair, don't you think? Opinion is one thing, and you are most certainly entitled to yours, but when you sarcastically ask questions that have been answered in black-on-white within the book, that doesn't look very good for those of us who have also read it. Worse yet, those who haven't yet read will assume that this truly is the level of plot in the book. Someone who doesn't know better would call it slanderous, but I understand that such is the bane of reviews. There is no way to write one without interjecting certain bias. Maybe your bias is against new authors. I do also (and perhaps however) wish you had been more fair.
Am I saying Prince of Knaves is the greatest piece of literature ever created? No. Among other things, the errata need to be dealt with, it needs a better cover, et cetera. But the plot is absolutely top-shelf. It is thoroughly explained and thought out. The characters are very real, and their emotions and motivations are realistic. In fact, many of the high points of the book were completely skimmed over in this review. The touching romance, the tearful confessions, the conflicts, the friendships, the way only a few tiny strings were left at the end for a segue into the probable sequel (as opposed to many books which scream sequel far too loudly for their own good). In my opinion, this book is masterfully written, and not just as a first novel or as a furry novel. (I do have some critical comments of my own, but that is not why I wrote in.)
You could absolutely disagree with that, but it seems many of the points you use to defend your opinions can be refuted with actual passages from the book. I don't wish to tell you how to do your job; please don't take this for me doing so. You have lots of these reviews under your belt and are clearly very experienced. But I also haven't read a great many of the books which you have reviewed, so I have prior taken your reviews at face value. This is a book I have actually delved into, and I am severely disappointed with the lack of justice I see in this review.
I must return to work, so I will end here. I will finish by saying this (TL;DR): I hope the people who read this review will take it with a grain of salt or maybe two. This book isn't pure perfection, but it has a great many merits, and I am disappointed those merits aren't given more light and recognition. I have read the comments on the publisher's site, so I know for a fact that I am far from alone in saying what I say. I look forward to reading your future reviews but hope they are more fair and just.
Yours sincerely,
Ryan the Bear (excuse me if I don't sign with my real name; my position does not allow it)
P.S.
I wish I had influence enough to write a review people would actually read. I feel this book deserves it. I am sadly not a blogger, nor do I have a large following.
Dear reviewer;
To start off, I certainly agree with the issue you took in regards to better proofreading. (Although this isn't nearly as bad as a number of other books I have read over my years in the fandom. In fact, there are some very esteemed furry authors out there (without naming names) whose books have considerably more typos than Mr. Aalto's. All that said, there is still no excuse for having those typos.)
But this is not why I wrote in.
I must say that I completely fail to understand your comments regarding the book's plot. You called it superficial and asked a number of questions, some of which were very palpably sarcastic. It seems to me that you have missed quite a few parts of the book where your questions would have been answered. The prince stayed behind because he was smart enough to realize that running would only be worse for him in the end. He talks about this in the very beginning, as I recall. He has no wish to help his father or to restore the kingdom. He just wants to find the king to get him to testify on his behalf. That's it. It is only later that he realizes how much his father means to him. On top of that, it is in his character. Adventure and danger arouse him. I believe this fact is mentioned in the very first chapter. Aside from that very explicit mention, remember how he talks to Saaron about his near-death experience? He does so with glee.
Similarly, there is a very good (and clever, in my opinion) reason for why a lot of Rivard's capers are so easy to pull. I won't reveal it here because I don't wish to spoil things, but it has a certain something to do with luring that young fox to a certain place.
You also appear to have missed a scene towards the end of the book where Rivard and his father have a heart to heart. Again, I don't wish to spoil much for those who haven't read, but there is a reason his father does not notice Rivard's frequent treks into the city.
I also see here that you question the prince's stamina. It's all in the youth, my friend. College was a long, long time ago for me, but I clearly recall being able to stay up all night at some party or another, tending to my girlfriend after said party, and then waking up for class at 8, only to rinse and repeat such events the very next night. I couldn't tell you where all that energy is now.
I wish to stress that I mean absolutely no offense by any of this, but nearly every question you have asked is spelled out quite clearly within the book. I understand you probably have to review these novels quickly, but not giving a title the justice it deserves is kind of unfair, don't you think? Opinion is one thing, and you are most certainly entitled to yours, but when you sarcastically ask questions that have been answered in black-on-white within the book, that doesn't look very good for those of us who have also read it. Worse yet, those who haven't yet read will assume that this truly is the level of plot in the book. Someone who doesn't know better would call it slanderous, but I understand that such is the bane of reviews. There is no way to write one without interjecting certain bias. Maybe your bias is against new authors. I do also (and perhaps however) wish you had been more fair.
Am I saying Prince of Knaves is the greatest piece of literature ever created? No. Among other things, the errata need to be dealt with, it needs a better cover, et cetera. But the plot is absolutely top-shelf. It is thoroughly explained and thought out. The characters are very real, and their emotions and motivations are realistic. In fact, many of the high points of the book were completely skimmed over in this review. The touching romance, the tearful confessions, the conflicts, the friendships, the way only a few tiny strings were left at the end for a segue into the probable sequel (as opposed to many books which scream sequel far too loudly for their own good). In my opinion, this book is masterfully written, and not just as a first novel or as a furry novel. (I do have some critical comments of my own, but that is not why I wrote in.)
You could absolutely disagree with that, but it seems many of the points you use to defend your opinions can be refuted with actual passages from the book. I don't wish to tell you how to do your job; please don't take this for me doing so. You have lots of these reviews under your belt and are clearly very experienced. But I also haven't read a great many of the books which you have reviewed, so I have prior taken your reviews at face value. This is a book I have actually delved into, and I am severely disappointed with the lack of justice I see in this review.
I must return to work, so I will end here. I will finish by saying this (TL;DR): I hope the people who read this review will take it with a grain of salt or maybe two. This book isn't pure perfection, but it has a great many merits, and I am disappointed those merits aren't given more light and recognition. I have read the comments on the publisher's site, so I know for a fact that I am far from alone in saying what I say. I look forward to reading your future reviews but hope they are more fair and just.
Yours sincerely,
Ryan the Bear (excuse me if I don't sign with my real name; my position does not allow it)
P.S.
I wish I had influence enough to write a review people would actually read. I feel this book deserves it. I am sadly not a blogger, nor do I have a large following.