I wanted to like it. I really did.The interesting - and weird - thing about this book is that it's a true companion piece. However, since the first book was so amazingly detailed and complete in itself, I think it actually works.There were many parts, though, that seemed like weird parallels of the first one, like the author didn't quite know how to develop Kane/Dex's relationship within its own right.I get that it's possible for these people to have a lot of the similar feelings, but sometimes it just seemed too much like a redux of the same-old-same-old in the different circumstances.And weirdly enough, the sex in this book actually did read like porn to me. The non-actual-porn parts (if there were any; I don't quite remember). I mean, in the first one, for all that the two MCs were "porn stars," there was enough personality presented/developed that they were their own people. This one is kind of like porn, in that the characters are developed enough that they're not just pieces of meat banging each other, but not developed enough that you really get a sense of their person, if that makes sense. Kind of like the porn that Johnnies makes, I guess?It was just disconcerting and weird. And too often, Dex felt like someone on the verge of a psychotic breakdown while Kane felt like a caricature. It was the two happening in tandem that really scewed with the story's realism.The entire thing just felt really...juvenile. The two characters were both really simplistic in a small-child sort of way, which is surprising - but not really, I guess - after the complexity of the first book. It was just really contrived and awkward. I especially didn't like the way Dex's death came out (the real Dex). The circumstances...just...the book had me OTL'ing so many times =_=The characterization was hazy and, as a result, the events of the book seemed like a random series of non sequiturs that were often quite contrived.The way they acted around Dex/David's family just seemed completely illogical and there was just too much wangsting overall.It did get a bit better with the scene with John's confessionA couple semantical things that bothered me:"a shiny, rough diamond" -- First off, diamonds sparkle, they don't shine. Also, rough diamonds are diamonds before they're cut. They have a matte surface and are definitely neither sparkly nor even reflective. I get the idiom she's getting at -- the diamond in the rough -- but it's not used correctly here. Even with the correct phrasing, it doesn't fit the context.So, I guess a 2.5 out of 5 overall? Probably more like a 2. Of course, it's originally high rating makes me inclined to rate it even lower. So it's a 2 in the rating.Hmm...it has a lot that could be something. But that stuff doesn't quite get worked into the "something," so all it ends up as is incredibly lacking.1/18/13 ETA:I just read [b:Clear Water|12393029|Clear Water|Amy Lane|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347640343s/12393029.jpg|17374136] and wanted to say a couple of things."Oh. That makes sense." was my first reaction to reading the foreword. I can see where some of this came from now. I don't mean "Oh, I can see where this comes from" in a "no wonder it's so shitty" sort of way. I just mean, "Oh. Slight ADHD. Okay, some of the writing makes sense then."Maybe I'm just trying to justify to myself why I disliked this book - which I really wanted to like - so much...As for the above, I think Lane had a bit of trouble developing Dex and Kane beyond what was presented in bk 1. I mean, they were kind of flat characters. It was almost like Lane couldn't quite break them free of Chase in Shadow and create for them their own story that was wholly their own.