Log inBLOG: THE HENCHMEN OF ZENDA REVIEW AND FIRST PERSON POV
Fresh off finishing THE HENCHMEN OF ZENDA by KJ Charles and I had a wonderful time, I completely understand why everyone likes KJ Charles. The writing is fun, the characters are very engaging even when they’re wretched, and the plot moves at a satisfying pace—plus the sex scenes are charming and don’t sacrifice any personality. I do wish there had been slightly more detail on any of the several dick-sucking scenes, but I’m very puckish. The story carried me through effortlessly, even without all the wet details.
If you’re unfamiliar, as I was, this book is a kind of send-up of a much older pulp adventure novel called THE PRISONER OF ZENDA by Anthony Hope, from 1894. KJ Charles refers to it as one of her problematic faves in the author note. You do not need to read the original to enjoy this new book. HENCHMEN OF ZENDA is not, thankfully, a correction or even a satire, but a very interesting retelling of the same story from the perspective of one of the villain’s henchmen from the original novel—a sellsword named Jasper Detchard. In the retelling, Jasper offers a much more realistic (according to him) account of the pulp novel’s story, offering commentary all throughout about what’s really going on—namely, that the female characters have agency and personality, and the flamboyant villainous swordsman, Rupert Hentzau, is a bisexual brat who doesn’t actually believe in an incestuous monarchy.
I frequently have a lot of mixed feelings about modern authors trying to correct or scrub the problematic elements from older works. It doesn’t actually help anyone to pretend that bigoted works telling pro-monarchical stories never existed, but I think HENCHMEN is taking a fun tack with it by fully acknowledging the original story in its flaws, while offering the idea that not everyone was actually on board with that kind of thinking.
It’s a great read if you like hardened older experienced swordsmen attempting to deal with horny brats against the backdrop of political scheming and deep lines of conflicting loyalty.
The best part of this book is that it reminded me that good first person POV adds texture to a story. I often say I’m not overly fond of first person narratives but the truth is closer to: first person POV is high risk high reward, much like second person. I’m speaking on a personal preference level here, I know many people adore first person or else it wouldn’t be so popular. But for me, both 1st and 2nd POV call for a particular kind of narrator or else I bounce off.
In my opinion, 3rd person is the most forgiving. I consider it the universal POV. 3rd person requires making a decision about the tone of the story you want to tell, and how omniscient you wish to be, but the “voice” of a third person narrator has the benefit of being a disembodied narrator that does not require character logic the same way that 1st does. 3rd is allowed to be a little more detached, a little less involved. It’s flexible.
1st person POV is most successful when it’s carried by a character with a strong personality and distinct voice—which is the case in HENCHMEN OF ZENDA. Jasper is incredibly clear from the start, both as character and as narrator. The text very effortlessly establishes that not only is Jasper telling this story for a particular reason, but he’s doing so with a very particular perspective that you begin to look forward to as reader. A well-spoken, experienced, thirsty scoundrel telling us the corrected version of some asshole prince’s popularized account of the same story where I get to see all the villain’s actions and none of the hero’s? Sign me up.
In my opinion, epistolary and other similar forms are the best use of 1st person. A 1st story that firmly distinguishes between narrator and reader is automatically going to get an edge on keeping me as a reader. A weak 1st person narrator is a weak protagonist and a weak storyteller. Protagonists are hard enough to make interesting, you need a truly load-bearing protagonist in order to pin the burden of narrator onto their shoulders in addition to the burden of narrative focal point.
If I’m settling down to follow a single character throughout the length of a story, I want them to have a very strong voice. Personality, style, perspective, wants, needs, flaws, all of these things need to be wrapped up, seamlessly, in the narration of the story or else that voice will be crushed by the weight of the narrative. What I mean by that is, if your 1st person narrator has no voice, no personality, no clear perspective, then they are going to read as a flavorless, indistinguishable narrator, not a character, but a hapless voice that’s getting helplessly carried through the story, adding nothing to the story. 3rd person gives the reader and author a buffer between character and narration, which takes some of the pressure off your protagonist to be on and interesting 100% of the time, but 1st demands character voice and logic for everything, which means less flexibility.
A truly load-bearing protagonist in a 1st story will have made it very clear very quickly why they are the protagonist—whether directly or inadvertently. In the case of HENCHMEN, Jasper immediately establishes his desire to offer the truth omitted from this other ridiculous story, and does so with humor and intrigue. Right out of the gate, he’s a strong narrator with wants and needs. You can tell me all you like that a narrator is cool and sexy and interesting, but I need to see you back that up in the prose with voice. The personality needs to flavor the text! If there’s no strong personality, there’s no strong narrative.
I think far too many people take “strong personality” to mean “an asshole” which is definitely not the only answer here. Your protagonist can be a nice person, but the way they reflect on things, the way they describe people, the way they choose to convey information—that needs to add up to something more than just a newspaper article describing events that took place. Even if you never name the first person narrator, I should know what kind of person they are by the way they tell the story. Their life experiences should naturally come up in the exposition. Being an asshole is not the only answer. Jasper of HENCHMEN purports himself to be soulless, but it’s very obvious from the beginning that he has far more soul than he lets on—and he loves fucking men! It’s his weakness! All of this is effortlessly made clear by the first few pages of narration even before we get to the meat of the story. That’s how you hook me as a reader! Endear me to your protagonist before I even know why I’m following them.
Unreliable narrators are obviously also quite fun when done well, but just because a narrator is lying to me, doesn’t mean they need to be flavorless.
Your narrator is not there to be the director—that’s the author’s job. Directing should not be on the page, it should be undetectable. But if your protagonist has nothing to offer in terms of voice, all those “I did this, I did that” phrases are either going to start reading like stage directions, or feeling like it’s directed at the reader and, buddy, I would not fucking say that. That’s for 2nd person, which is its own beast. One of those things that I love writing but I’m really picky as a reader. 2nd person is all about intentionally blurring the line between narrator and reader, which brings you closer to interactive fiction and other wonky things. It’s harder to define good uses for that, since it is such a particular thing.
Anyway this is all my opinion, and all rules are made to be broken. You may have different opinions! That’s okay. I don’t actually believe that 3rd person is best, but I do think 1st person is way more difficult to pull off than people give it credit for. Regardless of what you choose for your story, you should consider all your options. Consider who is telling your story and why—how that limits you or opens things up. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your protagonist and/or narrator. Consider tone, consider voice, consider personality and perspective and how to back that up via your prose. This is what we mean when we say “show don’t tell.” Telling is when your narrator says, “I am an experienced sailor” to solve a problem, and then it never comes up again. Showing is when you prove through the story how that experience as a sailor flavors the character’s point of view and voice and how they see the world.
There is a magic to making a reader want to follow a narrator through an entire novel, and I wanted to follow Jasper Detchard. He did not let me down. He also made me wonder about taking a crack at a good 1st person story of my own.
A narrator can be clever and polite, they can be abrasive and apologetic, they can be cold and calculating, they can be warm and gentle while committing horrific acts. A narrator can be anything, but it does need to be something. That’s true of any POV.
