This book review was taken from the Ferdarian Gazette. It was written by the president of the newspaper, Quentin Jacobi.
Rukha 15th 1885
I will admit that reviewing Kingsley Montivelo’s memoir, For the Next Killer Who Dies, seems like a conflict of interest. At the same time, it is not often that one gets a chance to review a book one is in. I am offended about Mr. Montivelo’s physical representation of me. I was a bit rough around the edges, but I definitely had class.
Let me get the big question out of the way: why did I interview the KLA. I have been asked this question many times during my life and I predict that I will be bombarded with that very same question after this book is published. Mr. Montivelo simplified my answer because it served his narrative. I interviewed the KLA, because the Shivians were suppressing the truth and, as a journalist, it was my responsibility to find it and report it. My team and I did the same thing in the Ignis, the Black Forest, the Druid-Demon War, and the Second Shadow War. I see no reason to be ashamed or regret what I did even through it meant rubbing elbows with murderers and terrorists.
Mr. Montivelo’s memoir itself is well written and his voice is strong and pleasant (he has obviously been studying his Noble and Bercetti) with the ability to evoke the reader’s sympathies while also staying light and distance when it came to murdering and attacking Shivians. The death of Killers often runs for pages, but a Shivian death only last a few sentences at the most. With the exception of Sebastian Wallace and Caterina Montivelo, the Shivians are portrayed with a straight faced cruelty, ignorance, or bigotry. Even I am portrayed in a cynically businesslike manner, sometimes supporting the KLA and sometimes as a sensational opportunist. Mr. Montivelo writes with an earnestness rarely matched and a seriousness that befits the topic, but sounds strange to someone who knows him.
Which is why it is hard not to imagine his knowing smirk as he tries to convince us that he suffered from shell shock after Siegfried’s Death or that he truly believed in his mantra “the KLA never kills its own”. There is plenty of evidence which proves that the KLA and the IFM killed each other as often as they killed Shivians and Kingsley’s actions during the Second Shadow War illustrate that he was never shy about spilling blood. Speaking as someone who knew him then and now, Kingsley did not shed a tear for the dead of Siegfried’s Day. He saw it as an opportunity to establish control over the organization and once he grabbed power he never let go.
Despite his best efforts, his calculating side shines through and, even though he did his damnedest to present the KLA’s cause in the best light, there is no denying that the KLA’s methods were extreme and, in many ways, inexcusable. At the same time, I foresee that many people will side with Kingsley’s portrayal of the Conference at Risina (which I swear has only gotten worse), the Shivian administrations-particularly Kenneth Troy’s-and may even sympathize with the KLA’s wish to be free. We are just coming to terms with the Second Shadow War and the decades that preceded it and, especially given the state of the Ignis Desert and Gargain, Kingsley’s story of a minority trying to break away from a tyrannical empire will strike a chord with many people.
Mr. Montivelo’s memoir, as a work of fiction, is an insightful glimpse into the colonial policies of Shiva and the workings of a separatist movement, but it should not be taken seriously as history. Like most elected officials, Mr. Montivelo wrote the book to further his agenda. Only time will tell if he was successful in changing the KLA’s reputation. As someone who once interviewed the KLA and sporadically met with Mr. Montivelo over the years, I can say that their aspirations were honorable, but their tactics-particularly Mr. Montivelo’s-were a corruption. Whether that corruption came from Shivian colonial policy or from having too many generals and not enough privates, only time and unbiased analysis can say.
Rukha 15th 1885
I will admit that reviewing Kingsley Montivelo’s memoir, For the Next Killer Who Dies, seems like a conflict of interest. At the same time, it is not often that one gets a chance to review a book one is in. I am offended about Mr. Montivelo’s physical representation of me. I was a bit rough around the edges, but I definitely had class.
Let me get the big question out of the way: why did I interview the KLA. I have been asked this question many times during my life and I predict that I will be bombarded with that very same question after this book is published. Mr. Montivelo simplified my answer because it served his narrative. I interviewed the KLA, because the Shivians were suppressing the truth and, as a journalist, it was my responsibility to find it and report it. My team and I did the same thing in the Ignis, the Black Forest, the Druid-Demon War, and the Second Shadow War. I see no reason to be ashamed or regret what I did even through it meant rubbing elbows with murderers and terrorists.
Mr. Montivelo’s memoir itself is well written and his voice is strong and pleasant (he has obviously been studying his Noble and Bercetti) with the ability to evoke the reader’s sympathies while also staying light and distance when it came to murdering and attacking Shivians. The death of Killers often runs for pages, but a Shivian death only last a few sentences at the most. With the exception of Sebastian Wallace and Caterina Montivelo, the Shivians are portrayed with a straight faced cruelty, ignorance, or bigotry. Even I am portrayed in a cynically businesslike manner, sometimes supporting the KLA and sometimes as a sensational opportunist. Mr. Montivelo writes with an earnestness rarely matched and a seriousness that befits the topic, but sounds strange to someone who knows him.
Which is why it is hard not to imagine his knowing smirk as he tries to convince us that he suffered from shell shock after Siegfried’s Death or that he truly believed in his mantra “the KLA never kills its own”. There is plenty of evidence which proves that the KLA and the IFM killed each other as often as they killed Shivians and Kingsley’s actions during the Second Shadow War illustrate that he was never shy about spilling blood. Speaking as someone who knew him then and now, Kingsley did not shed a tear for the dead of Siegfried’s Day. He saw it as an opportunity to establish control over the organization and once he grabbed power he never let go.
Despite his best efforts, his calculating side shines through and, even though he did his damnedest to present the KLA’s cause in the best light, there is no denying that the KLA’s methods were extreme and, in many ways, inexcusable. At the same time, I foresee that many people will side with Kingsley’s portrayal of the Conference at Risina (which I swear has only gotten worse), the Shivian administrations-particularly Kenneth Troy’s-and may even sympathize with the KLA’s wish to be free. We are just coming to terms with the Second Shadow War and the decades that preceded it and, especially given the state of the Ignis Desert and Gargain, Kingsley’s story of a minority trying to break away from a tyrannical empire will strike a chord with many people.
Mr. Montivelo’s memoir, as a work of fiction, is an insightful glimpse into the colonial policies of Shiva and the workings of a separatist movement, but it should not be taken seriously as history. Like most elected officials, Mr. Montivelo wrote the book to further his agenda. Only time will tell if he was successful in changing the KLA’s reputation. As someone who once interviewed the KLA and sporadically met with Mr. Montivelo over the years, I can say that their aspirations were honorable, but their tactics-particularly Mr. Montivelo’s-were a corruption. Whether that corruption came from Shivian colonial policy or from having too many generals and not enough privates, only time and unbiased analysis can say.
