You have some good rebuttals, but I will still stick with my criticisms. Yes, a reason is given for Prince Natier's working against the plotters who have overthrown his father, but it seems inconsistent with his establishment in Chapter 1 as a hedonist who hates the stuffy responsibilities of his aristocratic rank, and who doesn't care what his upper-class peers think of him! Being publicly branded as an attempted regicide would seem to be an excellent way to get out of that position and permanently into the Rivard role that he prefers. Does he want the king to testify on his behalf just for his reputation among the commoners? That doesn't seem too plausible. He would be much freer to live a life of adventure and danger in his role of Rivard. And would he want the king to testify on his behalf without restoring the king? That wouldn't seem to do much for his reputation, either.
Similarly, to me (and I emphasize that, to me), the descriptions of his youth and stamina do not seem sufficient to explain how Natier/Rivard is able to work all day, party or go thieving all night, and still carry on the intense sex life that he does, even if the author does describe him as being pretty tired after the latter.
I felt that my review was pretty long as it was, so I did not get into the latter half where Rivard and Sam leave Llyra and have very different naval adventures. I left that to be a surprise for the readers. Possibly I should have left more "it seems that, but ..." and "there are surprises ahead" hints in the review.
Although there was no place to say so here, I was reminded of a criticism that I made in a review of Akif Pirinçci's "Felidae on the Road", the first sequel to his "Felidae", about fifteen years ago. I said that the sequel was so similar to the first novel that I almost grew bored and stopped reading it. Suddenly the story veered in a completely new direction, and it turns out that Pirinçci is deliberately making things so similar to lull the protagonist into a false complacency; "been here, done that". By the time he realizes that the villain has been setting him up, I felt that the average reader would have given up on the novel as just an unimaginative rehash of the first book. Aalto has done something similar here; many of the earlier criticisms turn out to be explained away, but too late in the novel to satisfy the reader.
I do say that, despite my criticisms, I enjoyed "The Prince of Knaves" and I think that readers will, too. (Those that aren't put off by all the graphic sex.) I look forward to Aalto's next novel, which I hope will be even better.
You have some good rebuttals, but I will still stick with my criticisms. Yes, a reason is given for Prince Natier's working against the plotters who have overthrown his father, but it seems inconsistent with his establishment in Chapter 1 as a hedonist who hates the stuffy responsibilities of his aristocratic rank, and who doesn't care what his upper-class peers think of him! Being publicly branded as an attempted regicide would seem to be an excellent way to get out of that position and permanently into the Rivard role that he prefers. Does he want the king to testify on his behalf just for his reputation among the commoners? That doesn't seem too plausible. He would be much freer to live a life of adventure and danger in his role of Rivard. And would he want the king to testify on his behalf without restoring the king? That wouldn't seem to do much for his reputation, either.
Similarly, to me (and I emphasize that, to me), the descriptions of his youth and stamina do not seem sufficient to explain how Natier/Rivard is able to work all day, party or go thieving all night, and still carry on the intense sex life that he does, even if the author does describe him as being pretty tired after the latter.
I felt that my review was pretty long as it was, so I did not get into the latter half where Rivard and Sam leave Llyra and have very different naval adventures. I left that to be a surprise for the readers. Possibly I should have left more "it seems that, but ..." and "there are surprises ahead" hints in the review.
Although there was no place to say so here, I was reminded of a criticism that I made in a review of Akif Pirinçci's "Felidae on the Road", the first sequel to his "Felidae", about fifteen years ago. I said that the sequel was so similar to the first novel that I almost grew bored and stopped reading it. Suddenly the story veered in a completely new direction, and it turns out that Pirinçci is deliberately making things so similar to lull the protagonist into a false complacency; "been here, done that". By the time he realizes that the villain has been setting him up, I felt that the average reader would have given up on the novel as just an unimaginative rehash of the first book. Aalto has done something similar here; many of the earlier criticisms turn out to be explained away, but too late in the novel to satisfy the reader.
I do say that, despite my criticisms, I enjoyed "The Prince of Knaves" and I think that readers will, too. (Those that aren't put off by all the graphic sex.) I look forward to Aalto's next novel, which I hope will be even better.
Fred Patten