This is my review of the gilded blade
(and the trilogy as a whole)
Tag: @the-tig-essay-writer @alwaysthefangirl @sadiecece @asalmiel @whismywinx @thankmyluckystarrs @reminiscentreader @lyrakanefanatic @nothinggggg7 @nonerrata-myarchives @masasinsanity
My overall opinion is simple -> I'm disappointed.
Not because the story didn't go the way I expected but because I don't think it was executed well. By the time I reached the final page, I wasn't satisfied I was left questioning the creative decisions behind the book.
What surprised me most is how difficult it was to find an aspect that truly stood out in a positive way. From the plot and pacing to the characterization and narrative structure, I felt the book consistently fell short of what it was trying to achieve.
This review won't focus on spoilers or summarizing the story. Instead I'll be analyzing the writing itself in my opinion.
1 - The mystery is no longer the heart of the story
This is probably the biggest issue, the original trilogy worked because every clue changed how readers understood the world. Here the mystery often feels like an excuse to move characters from one location to another instead of fundamentally changing the narrative, the puzzles are entertaining but they're no longer driving the emotional core. They're decorating it.
2 - The book is suffering from franchise expansion
Instead of asking "does this story need to exist?" the book often feels like it asks "how can we stay in this universe longer?" that's a dangerous shift. The world becomes larger but not necessarily deeper.
3 - Too many POVs dilute emotional investment
Rohan, Lyra, Gigi, Jameson, all of them receive attention, the problem isn't that they're bad POVs (well Jameson pov was BAD, Rohan pov felt meaningless, I don't even know what to say about Lyra pov, Gigi personality saved her pov), the problem is that constantly switching perspectives prevents any single emotional arc from reaching its full potential, instead of one unforgettable journey, readers get several decent ones.
4 - Stakes are constantly told instead of felt
Characters repeatedly explain how dangerous something is but danger isn't created by dialogue, it's created by irreversible consequences, if we, readers believe everyone important will survive, tension naturally drops.
5 - The Hawthorne formula is becoming predictable
Every few chapters there's:
-> another shocking reveal
Eventually we start expecting twists instead of being surprised by them, when every chapter tries to be shocking, none of them truly are.
6 - Character relationships overshadow character development
Several relationships receive significant page time but emotional intimacy isn't the same as character growth. A character should leave the story fundamentally changed not simply paired with someone.
7 - Nostalgia carries too much weight
The book frequently relies on readers attachment to previous books. That's rewarding for longtime fans but it also means the book sometimes depends on existing affection instead of earning it through this story alone.
The opening moves quickly. The middle can feel repetitive, with clue after clue. Then the ending accelerates rapidly, resolving multiple plot threads in a short span. The rhythm doesn't always feel balanced.
9 - The trilogy fails the most basic requirement of a trilogy -> narrative cohesion
A trilogy is supposed to feel like one story told in three parts. The grandest game introduces a premise, a mystery and a set of thematic questions that should gradually build toward a payoff in the gilded blade but the truth is that there is almost no meaningful connection between the first book and the last book. The central setup of the grandest game, the competition, the new players, the tension surrounding the game itself and the promise that this was the beginning of something larger, does not evolve into the climax of the gilded blade, instead the final book feels like it is resolving a different story altogether, by the time I reach the ending, I can reasonably ask:
-> What was the point of the original game?
-> Why were these specific characters introduced?
-> What mystery from book one was truly paid off?
-> How did the events of book one make the ending inevitable?
A strong trilogy creates the feeling that the ending was hidden in the beginning all along. The gilded blade does not achieve that. The clues, conflicts and emotional threads introduced in the grandest game are not woven into the finale in a satisfying way. The books feel connected by shared characters and branding, not by a carefully constructed overarching plot. That is why I came away with the impression that the trilogy was written book by book rather than planned as a complete narrative from the start. The result is a finale that may be entertaining on its own but it does not feel like the natural conclusion of the story that began in the grandest game.
10 - The characters react more than they act
Many major events happen to the characters rather than because of their choices. Strong protagonists shape the plot, here the plot often shapes them, when characters spend most of the story chasing clues instead of making decisions that permanently change the narrative, they lose agency.
11 - The ending relies more on surprise than inevitability
The best mysteries make readers think -> I should have seen that. A weaker mystery makes readers think -> I couldn't have guessed that. If a twist depends on information deliberately hidden from readers instead of clues placed throughout the story, it feels less earned.
12 - The emotional consequences are too short lived
Characters experience betrayal, loss or shocking revelations but the story often moves to the next puzzle before those emotions are fully explored, the plot has momentum but the emotional aftermath rarely has enough room to breathe.
13 - The themes remain underdeveloped
The trilogy hints at ideas like:
But instead of digging into them, it often returns to the next puzzle, the themes become background decoration rather than the foundation of the narrative.
14 - The trilogy introduces more than it resolves
Every new mystery creates an expectation of payoff. By the end, I should feel that the narrative has become simpler because questions have been answered. Instead, this trilogy can leave the impression that it keeps adding ideas without giving equal attention to resolving the ones already introduced.
-> I came to one conclusion: the grandest game never feels like a story that demanded to be told, instead it feels like a trilogy created to keep a successful franchise alive rather than to tell a compelling, necessary narrative. No amount of clever puzzles, shocking twists or Hawthorne charm can hide that fundamental flaw. A trilogy should leave readers believing that everything from its opening chapter to its final page was building toward one inevitable conclusion, the grandest game doesn't. When a trilogy reaches its ending and still can't explain why its beginning truly mattered, it has already lost the game.
And the greatest disappointment isn't that the grandest game is bad, it's that it had every opportunity to become something new and memorable, yet instead settled for being a continuation of a franchise that had already told its best story.
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
areudirty
izzy806
vaporwave
2087
discoholicmusic
