Sapphire's Review Store 3.0

Review by Jacob: The Imitator

Title: The Imitator

Author: DocileFiasco

Reviewer: Prince_Pretence

Blurb: 3.5/5

Not gonna lie, the blurb was confusing. I was introduced to the main character and something 'about' her, but I don't know what I am supposed to do with this information? Is she an asset? Good for her. Why should I care? I, as in the readers. Readers aren't the in–charges of NIB or CIA or FBI or anything for that matter. She is given the case of a lifetime, and she has to crack it. Well, allow me to introduce you to a million other such books where protagonists have to 'find some truth' or 'they might end up in the drain'. We know that there is an aim and a stake—but what are those? Because [and this is not even genre exclusive] literally every story has an aim and a stake, and they revolve around the protagonist(s). How does this story is different from the others is defined by insight on the actual story rather than flowery phrases such as 'crass cacophony' and 'mellifluous melody'.

Something else bothered me throughout the book—what is Emerald's exact position in the institute? Because as far as my knowledge goes, I've never heard of an investigation bureau who seeks people just for their imitation skills. So if that's something special about this lady, we need to know her position in the bureau.

Cover: 2.5/5

Does a pretty good job, not good enough. Mainly because of the fonts, text placement and colour choice. An excellent cover can be made with the same visuals but better type. I had to squint my eyes to read the subtitles. As a graphics designer myself, I strongly suggest a cover change, or you might lose readers on Wattpad, a place where most books are judged by their covers.

Grammar: 3.5/5

Tenses swap a LOT. At times, I just lost it. I couldn't keep track of whether things have happened, are happening or will happen. Especially when the characters talk. Same thing with POV. While we get to know Emerald's inner thoughts, her thinking, et al. But then we also get to see tidbits of other character's thought processes. If you wish to stick to the omniscient point of view, you might want to make it clear. How to do so? Don't make the other character's point of view too subtle. Give them at least 15% of the timing of Emerald's narration. Apart from that, for the book's current state [first draft] the writing is pretty good, except a few punctuations. A focused rereading ought to fix that.

Character Building: 3/5

Emerald is a well–rounded character. She is smart and witty. Funny? Not necessarily, which also goes to tell us that not a lot apart from her professional side is revealed. No, the whole interaction with her roommate or little flashbacks does not reveal anything about Emerald as the person. Speaking from my experience of being a multi–faceted human being, I can vouch that Emerald is not as she seems to be. Maybe this is all just a part of the plot? If so, then the boy is cool! But you might want to make it more clear. There is this other thing wherein the blurb it is told that she "learns from nature", and her pet parrot taught her about "imitation and kinesics". But in one of the initial chapters, she is called by someone to be trained in kinesics. Overlapping information. So far into the story, we still don't know Emerald's official position in the office.

This also brings me to other characters. One is Wendy who once mentions that "her dad is of weak heart" and that he wouldn't be "able to run the office without her". I'm sorry, but as far as I know, these organisations are run by the government, and they're not anyone's personal property. So, there is that. If it's a part of the story and clarified on, then good. If not, then you might want to.

Along with that, I don't learn much about other characters in person, to care about them. They are as vital to me as they're to Emerald at this point; they're either her colleagues or clients or mentors and employers. If she stops caring about them, and if they're still in the story, I wouldn't care much. Now, this is not a wrong approach, but if this is the approach, then you must take care to not change the tunes later on in the book. Just a warning, because I've read several books with the same pattern, where later on a character takes too much of the front seat and they're forced upon the reader when from the start [blurb] of the book, we've learned to be concerned only with the protagonist.

Writing Style: 3/5

Basic and flowery. How do these two go together? The best example is your blurb. It has a monotonous tone—we don't get any hint of any emotions from it, nor is it any different from a rookie writer's style to a writer like yourself who has penned several books. But then these phrases are present: mellifluous melody and crass cacophony. So, yes, you know how it is. Is it a bad combo? It wouldn't have been a bad thing, had you expanded a little more on the visuals, rather than the seats and walls of a scene. See, there is a difference between "showing" and "telling" and then "showing with telling". You might not have heard of it—I just made it up, because this is the first time I've encountered something like this. Consider the first few passages of chapter one. Boy, oh, boy—you went on to describe everything that held no importance to the story whatsoever. Now, I understand the urge of it—to place the thrill and put your readers in Emerald's shoes and let them know what she is feeling. You know where has this been done, right? The part where Martha comments about the red colour clothes she is wearing. That is meant to effect Emerald, and therefore the story somehow. That's how showing is done, rather than going to ramble about the touch of the steel or the number of walls in an interrogation room. Unless you're stuck in some den in Afghanistan, it's forever going to be a room with four walls. All in all, don't be too detailed, especially in opening chapters. And this is no consistency throughout the story, so I'll say that you very well know how to show, but just go overboard with it at times.

Plot + Originality: 5/5

Am I in this weird world where all the books coming my way for the last few days are good stuff? Like, let's talk about the plot first: it's lit! I like how this story is concerned only and only with Emerald, something that is the signature espionage genre. I absolutely love it. Despite the inconsistencies with Emerald's character, I appreciate seeing a character in the espionage genre who does not open the story with kicking ass. She is excellent, and the story that is developing lowkey reminds me of the movie Seven along with a few other stuff, but that may be just me having overread stuff. I like how her case comes her way—the creepy murders. I have never read anything of the sort—and I love it! So full points for both plot and originality. I'll just add that I don't have much to stay about the plot—because it's good. I tried nitpicking—but there is a point where we're stuck and give up saying that yeah, the plot has some real potential.

OVERALL SCORE: 20.5/30

A good book with the scope of lots of improvement. Especially when it comes to your writing skills. I adore Emerald for her quick wit and discipline as an officer. All in all, this is good—it can certainly blow up to the best, with few more efforts from your side. If you've any questions regarding my points or anything, just let me know, and I'll try to clarify them.