The only thing that left me a little unconvinced was the love story between Rachelle and Armand. For the longest time they didn’t like each other and then they began to grudgingly just barely trust one another and suddenly they were in love? When did that happen? I felt like I completely missed that part. It wasn’t quite insta-love but still seemed to come out of nowhere.
What I was very happy with was that Rachelle friendship with Amelie was a very strong motivator for her. There were time when she cared more for Amelie than she did for Armand which was very welcome. It was her love for Amelie AND Armand that made Rachelle make the right decision.
I liked that Erec was a little ambiguous. By the end, I began to suspect his part in the greater scheme of things so that wasn’t completely surprising. But I was happy to see that while he was despicable, there was a part of him that genuinely loved Rachelle.
Then there was La Fontain. The other ambiguous character. I suspected there was more to her than simply being the King’s mistress but the reveal did take me by surprise. Also, there was this entire portion in the middle where she seemed to completely disappear, which seemed a little odd.
I also liked Amelie, the lone character in the story, who cared for Rachelle without any ulterior motive and loved her enough to keep her from losing herself.
The other inconsistent part was that of the Bishop. Throughout most of the story, the Bishop was portrayed as an untrustworthy character who was scheming and plotting to overthrow the King as well as encouraging people to hide the Bloodbound. And then in the end, suddenly, he was a nice guy and Rachelle trusted him enough to entrust him with the one thing that could stop the Devourer. Really?
So yes, Crimson Bound was not without its inconsistencies but still a fun and enjoyable read.