I... feel like I did something wrong here. I've seen a lot of praise recently for this series and after finishing this first book I feel like maybe I'm not reading the same book as everyone else? 
 Now, I've heard people say the series improves as it goes on, but giving it that chance sort of feels like I'm excusing all the horrific breaches of consent and aggressively violent behaviour that goes on in this book. 
 It's especially interesting because I've heard the same arguments used for the Captive Prince series. I'm trying to figure out what's different because I didn't feel even remotely as skeeved out by them as I do about this book. And I think it comes down to the narrative. 
 Pacat's narrative never felt like it was excusing the behaviour of its characters. Yes, terrible things happened, but they happened on all sides and were constantly being challenged--especially by Damen as our point of view character. Whereas here, I don't think Sakavic's narrative does this at all. Most of the characters are bafflingly unlikable for very little reason. And what reasons and motivations the character seem to have are almost always intentionally obscured by the narrative. Instead of trying to tease out hints, Sakavic wants to leave you fumbling around in the dark, trusting that it will all make sense eventually. 
 The narrative also constantly excuses Andrew's deplorable behaviour, even going so far as to set him up as the protector--and it reeks too much of the abusive tactic that "I'm the only one who can keep you safe". But I can see how it would be well received by people who romanticize overly possessive behaviour ala 50 Shades. 
 Overall, queer lit (and M/M specifically) is over-saturated with these abusive, non-consensual relationships that we're supposed to buy as "romance" and I am just exhausted.