So many things went wrong in The Queen of the Tearling, and I don't even know where or how to start. I finished the book hoping it would become better. It didn't, and I only have myself to blame for buying into the hype and getting this book, which cost me around Php 600. The sequel, which I bought at the same time, cost me around Php 700. I doubt I'll ever read that. 
 The best word to describe this book is "sloppy." Everything, from the characters to the world-building, is sloppy. 
 Let's start with the world-building. Using future!Earth as a setting is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's interesting to read where humanity could end up if X happened. The Hunger Games, with all its issues, is a fascinating take on a future where reality TV is taken to brutal extremes. On the other hand, it has to be believable. The author (in this case, Erika Johansen) has to convince us readers that this far-off future could happen. This possible future has to make sense, given what we know of our past and present. Johansen fails to make a future that makes sense, and it snowballs from there. 
 The Tearling (the Tear? Tear? Tearling? God, this book is so inconsistent with its article usage) and surrounding lands were colonized after an unspecified event led to humanity abandoning their homeland and resettling elsewhere - an event called the Crossing. Allusions are made to a pre-Crossing dictatorial society where medical technology reached its peak. A few hundred years down the line, the Tearling is a pseudo-Medieval society where people die at doctors' hands because everything's dirty and all the excellent med tech got lost when a ship sank in the Crossing. 
 Seriously, they put ALL their tech in a single, easily sinkable ship. Weren't there clinics and (therefore) tech in the other ships? 
 Why is there a medieval stasis? Why are there geneticists and why do people know what a recessive gene is when doctors can't even maintain basic sanitation in their clinics? How do people know what ships are when there's no navy or shipping line? Why is there no printing press in a world where printed, pre-Crossing books exist? Why did the Crossing generation burn books for fuel when they were surrounded by trees? Why are there no mentions of Kelsea studying philosophical and political treatises like the Art of War, when her staunch atheism and anti-Bible stance is elaborated? (This does explain her utter lack of political acumen, not that this goes badly for her because she's a Mary Sue). If Carlin was as dedicated to making Kelsea a good queen as she's said to be, why are there major gaps in Kelsea's knowledge of recent history? Why is literacy rampant among the named characters when most of the Tearling is said to be illiterate? Why is Kelsea prioritizing book collection when she should be thinking up ways to beef up basic education? 
 I think I gave myself a headache. Nothing makes sense. 
 The characters aren't people. They're grotesque caricatures, and they're as subtle as sledgehammers to the head. Kelsea, the main character who is repeatedly shilled as a great person and a promising queen, is a hypocrite. She gets incredibly angry at the idea of women being enslaved, but she's resentful of beautiful women and downright dismissive of the plain and the ugly. She's outright dismissive of the idea that beautiful women have a hard time of it, when the beautiful woman who said that was a sex slave of her uncle's. She places so much stock on appearances, it's annoying how hypercritical she is on everyone's looks. Now, I'm not saying that annoying, petty characters are bad. Jonathan Stroud's Lucy is a good example of a heroine who's enjoyable even when she's being a jealous shrew. The main difference is that Stroud knows that Lucy is being unpleasant, and it shows in the narrative. Johansen seems blissfully unaware of Kelsea's flaws. Kelsea doesn't suffer the consequences of her brash decisions. Everything she does is the best way to do things, and those who disagree with her are in the wrong for doing so. One character says that she appears "wise and sad." I snorted because it's so ridiculous. 
 Also, it's funny that a fake history quote on how she tempers her justice with pity is immediately repudiated by her threatening her bodyguards with death if they disobey her. 
 The other characters are window dressing. Andalie has no personality besides being mysterious and angry with her husband. Marguerite's trauma as the Regent's mistress is unexplored, and Kelsea derides her experiences because she's beautiful and it's worth it (I'm not kidding oh my God). Mace (or the Mace, because Johansen doesn't know consistency) serves as a voice of reason that gets constantly ignored. The handsome bodyguard who betrays his queen for heroin is supposed to be pitiful, but he has so little screentime that I couldn't muster any emotion when he bites it. 
 The Fetch (Fetch? Again, article consistency) is creepy and annoyingly domineering. I can't believe Kelsea just falls for him within seconds because he's hot. But then again Kelsea is obsessed with appearances so I guess that makes sense. I snorted (again) when Kelsea tells him that she decided she'd die for the Tearling (or Tear?) when she met him because WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?! Ugh, this book is so bad! 
 Other notes: 
 -Carlin is a terrible mother figure, but I can't believe Kelsea thinks she has no imagination. She loves fiction. How can she have no imagination? 
 -Queen Elyssa could have been a tragic figure, a woman who was all beauty and no brains but did the best she could for her people when faced with the prospect of total annihilation. But nope, she's a shallow bimbo, the end. 
 -The Red Queen is actually the most interesting character in this book. Imagine: an evil slaver-Queen who maims people for kicks retches when she sees the body of a boy sucked dry by a demon. That's a rich mine for conflict and character development right there. I don't trust Johansen to do much with this though. 
 -Wow, Johansen must really hate organized religion. But Carlin and Kelsea are such strawwomen atheist archetypes that I couldn't take their points seriously. 
 -Has this book ever been proofread? Because wow the article inconsistencies are really glaring. 
 -For a book touted as a feminist work, The Queen of the Tearling is decidedly misogynistic. What's wrong with playing dolls, walking daintily, and liking pretty clothes? Why demean women who aren't traditionally beautiful? 
 tl;dr: I hated this book. It's a waste of money and I wish I hadn't bought it.