Who is the Monster and who is the Man?

The King by Eris Belmont

Disclaimer: This post contains spoilers. Please don’t ready beyond the bulleted list if you hate those.

So, we’re midway through April and this is my first post for the year. It feels good to be writing about some of the things I’ve been reading again. What can I say, 2023 has been a dick so far.

Anyway, the book in question is, I believe, is a reader-powered publication. I honestly hadn’t known about Inkitt before reading this one, but I’ll be looking into it further for sure. The King, by Eris Belmont (a pseudonym voted for by fans) is the first book in a series. It’s dark, which, I suppose I should’ve guessed since it’s frequently labelled a ‘dark novel’. It’s dark in such a way, though, that I’m honestly not sure how to rate this one. I suppose I can come up with some arbitrary categories.

Let’s see:
• Writing style – 4
• Writing ability – 2 at the start, 4 towards the end
• Character building – 1 at the start, 3 towards the end
• Plot – 3.5
• General emotional journey – seriously conflicting
• Slow reveal of immense depth and complexity – 5.

Actually, that kind of helped. I guess we’re sitting somewhere along the 3 stars line.
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I changed my mind many times throughout. Initially, I was relatively intrigued, wondering how redeemable the characters might be. Then, I started to feel a slow seeping fury, as the plot developed into something that looked a lot like the glorification of rape and abuse. I had to keep reading, though, which is saying something – and not skim reading either. I wanted to know everything.

Ultimately, I don’t think it was the glorification of rape, because of how Annalise (the protagonist) evolves as a character. She is immensely passive at the start, and a lot of the attributes assigned to her by other characters just don’t seem to be there. A bit like when Bella in Twilight is described as smart and cunning when nothing that she’s doing is really anything other than ordinary.

Having said that, the psychological themes in this book are fascinating and, if I’m honest, a lot of them do ring relatively true. The ideas around submission versus rebellion, and fear versus loyalty are intricately woven to the point where I’m a little in awe of how Belmont crafted plot and character together. And this is despite the fact that, at around the 30% mark, I wasn’t convinced the characters were anything other than two-dimensional shells walking through a violent plot.

I do think there are some elements to the characters and their interactions with their surroundings that could have been better developed. I also do think that the extraordinarily irredeemable nature of the monster might have been a bit of a missed opportunity. As an editor, I also winced a bit at the amount of typos and editorial errors, but I can appreciate that the work’s condition was actually pretty decent for something that I doubt had a team of editors to begin with, so if Belmont was able to bring it to this standard solo, it’s actually deeply impressive. I was also intrigued and impressed by the stark similarity of brutality between man and beast, and the potential social commentary that evokes.

All in all, I might still be unpacking this one. It surprised me. I’m considering supporting the author’s Patreon. I think there’s a lot of talent here and want to see how it grows.



View all my reviews