There are other reviewers who have said what I'm about to say and probably better. That said, you would need to dig through the immense pile of 5-star reviews to find them. I honestly don't know what to think of all the 5-star reviews, they are the reason I bought the book and now I feel lied to. Perhaps these people have never read a great work of fiction and this dreadful example of prose is the absolute best they have ever read? Although I suspect the truth is that many of these people are part of the self-published writer’s group and they exchange favors by giving each other 5-star reviews in the hopes of deceiving readers such as myself into purchasing their novels. Not cool.
So, why 1 star? Well, it is not because I am trying to be overly harsh or cruel but honest. 5-star ratings belong to the great writers such as J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, and Stephen King. These are the true masters of the art and putting this book on the same level with them could be likened to taking a shit in your vegetable garden. It just does not belong there. 1-star reviews are reserved for those who can write but simply are not that good at it, as is the case with J.N. Chaney.
The pace of the book was boring and slow. It drags itself out until, finally, at the end the author tries to inject some excitement, it is too little too late. The plot is tired, old, and used which makes it easily predictable. I’ve seen it done before and I've seen it done much better. The characters are flat and have no depth to them. They do not seem well thought out and are poorly developed, if at all. Who are these people and what inspires them to act the way they do? I don’t know that either. The dialogue is terrible and not engaging. It often seems like all characters are using the same voice, there isn’t a uniqueness to them. More often than not the dialogue consists of dull bickering. Can bickering be dull? I wouldn’t have thought so before reading this book, but this author manages to do it. The world building is nearly non-existent and basic at best. The author is constantly repeating the same details. The blue grass, the dust on everything, and the sky are some examples. He doesn’t even bother to switch up the way these details are used, it’s like he just copied and pasted these descriptions throughout the book. The novel as a whole doesn’t seem well thought out. It contradicts itself regularly and the science seems questionable. One of the best examples of this is the sentence: “The exception was the face, which appeared to contain the snout of a dog and the eyes of a deer, though the details were difficult to make out through the infrared.” This description is coming from a boy who has lived underground and has never seen a deer or presumably a dog for that matter, so how is it that he knows that the eyes look like deer eyes. Even if he had seen a deer before (perhaps in a picture) you would not be able to see that detail while looking at it in infrared. Google a picture of a deer in infrared and you will see my point. This and many other inconsistencies are distracting from an already poorly written story. Maybe if the author had spent some time revising his prose and reworking it, he could have produced something of interest. However, I can not recommend this book to anyone as good reading material.
My advice for Mr. Chaney, revision, revision, revision!!