Imperfect Cadence

I really wanted to like this book, I did, but I just couldn't.

Four percent in and I already wanted to smother myself with a pillow because « For the Fans » by Nyla K. is mentioned as a pillar of queer literature or whatever, which is without a doubt the least accurate thing I've ever read. I could write a whole essay on everything wrong with that piece of trash (and I probably will) but that's not the subject here.

Anyways, that was the first strike, which admittedly, can be ignored for some people.

Second : the writing style. I understand that this was the author's first book, and that you can't master writing easily, but there's a standard to meet. This whole book was telling us what was happening and we were just supposed to believe it. Ever heard of « show, don't tell »? Insta love in general is hard to believe, so when we aren't even immersed in the character's feelings and actions, well... Gray and Colt's whole relationship in the past happens « off-screen ». We're told they get closer and that they have dates, etc, but none of those scenes are included in the book, so any development reads as very sudden and unbelievable.

In the same vein, this book was marketed as a second chance romance, yet the actual second chance represented maybe 15% of the book, and that's being generous. All the time spent in the past ends up being repetitive after we get to the breakup, especially when we get both perspectives of the same event (there are things readers can infer just from previous/future events and one character's point of view). They're miserable and there are misunderstandings, we get it, now move on. When we finally get back to the present, we only get more misunderstandings before they fuck and talk a bit and then all is well. What? Where's the second chance romance here?

Talking about quiproquos, I can't not mention how unrealistic they were. The whole « Colt is number one singer in the country and nobody knows he's married » thing was already unlikely, but him not having fired Carl years ago when he clearly hates him is ridiculous. Depression doesn't make you stupid and it certainly doesn't force you to employ a cliché Disney villain (because yes, that's how his character read : a man mean just for the sake of being mean, with no other layer or reasoning). Don't even get me started on what Grayson wanted to say at the hospital and what came out : there are virtually no chances for these exact words to be missing or present. Not everything in a story has to be one hundred percent realistic but please, try to make it at least plausible.

There's another thing that I found very odd : the random « psychoanalysis » moments and the characters reassuring themselves about their mistakes by invoking pseudo-psychology and how they needed to do something for their mental health. In theory, it's not something I hate at all, I think it's important to have open discussions and to see a therapist if you need one, but this was just handled weirdly. Mostly, those moments felt like plot devices and as such, they didn't really make me feel empathetic for the characters, especially considering I found it to be very stereotypical.

Additionally, the supporting characters felt like they revolved around the main characters. Violet is only present when it's convenient and leaves when the MCs have sex, just like that. She's a child, and Gray's borderline bad parenting of her isn't resolved. He loves her and isn't her dad, sure, but that doesn't make it all okay. At the end of the day, he chose to take care of her. Her maturity just hurt my soul : even though a child being mature isn't necessarily a bad thing, in context, it felt like she grew up too fast because of Gray. Willy randomly decided to become friends with a client because he seemed sad, psychoanalysed him and drops everything for him. All that while being told, again, that they become best friends. That always makes the MCs feel selfish to me, because friendship isn't a one-way street and that's always how we are presented things. Same goes for Remy.

Lastly, I don't know if the author is a straight woman or if she's queer, but either way, she clearly doesn't know much about gay relationships. If you're going to write about people who aren't like you, please at least do some research.

This is a very dense review with a lot of criticism, but please understand that my goal isn't to flame this author or judge anyone who enjoyed this book. It still has its good sides; it's a nice concept, though not revolutionary, and an entertaining read.