Vae Victis: woe to the vanquished.
Will you be defeated?
Enter my arena, where you'll find brutal honesty, blunt critiques and epidermic reaction to what you call writing.
Even if the title could trigger imagination, it also could apply to any genre. It doesn't hint anything about the story and, even if it's not a bad thing in itself, I must admit I wouldn't have chosen to read the story based on the title only.
____________________
Cover
The cover doesn't help either. The close up on a face is very generic and once again, doesn't give any clue on what I'm about to read. Furthermore, like I said many times in many places, putting a person on a cover leads readers (me at least) to think it's the main character. I personnaly hate to see my imagination killed with a picture. I don't need cast, I need words to create my own and unique mental picture.
Two more things to say about the cover:
- "Written by" is unnecessary.
- The artist name right in th middle of the cover is kinda ruining it.
____________________
Blurb
You fell for the "Book 1" mention (I once did the same with my story Puerto Seguro--currently under revision for the second draft. Yes I'm advertising my work in a review, but it's my review book so I do as I please). This book doesn't seem to be finished yet, but you already claim there will be sequel. Cocky. What if you never write the book 2? (I know, I once did the same).
The first sentence of the blurbs is cryptic as fuck. "The Daily Star sits at the helm of the Nation of Stars". I have no idea what to make of that as I don't know what the Daily Star is (a person, a ting, an idea?). I guss the Nation of Stars is a country with a strange name, or a cohalition of countries, of planets. See? Not a clue. Fortunately the second sentence offer a partial definition. The Daily Star is an AI. But if it's revered and reviled at the same time (I guess by different people), why bother mention that? It kind of cancel itself.
The next sentence should be strike because it's a mistake so common I can't stand to see it in blurbs anymore. It as nothing to do with the first two sentences. It's like you sart a new blurb. I understand you need to justify your title, but do I really care about the Daily Star and what it is, when the story seems to be about something/someone else entirely? Either you cut the two first sentences or you find a way to make a smooth transition between the Daily Star and Steven.
Another mistake: the tird sentence goes on forever. There are so many different informations. Some are even irrelevant. "After Steven discovers that his parents are gone missing" isn't really fitting or important as is, and it seems that the government waited for Stephen's parent to disappear to recruit him, which sounds weird. If the two information are inded connected and important for the story, you need to clarify it. The only interresting part, plotwise, is that Steven is recruited as an agent to infiltrate a group willing to depose the government (watch out for repetitions-here "government").
