Scan barcode
kirbs419's review against another edition
3.0
Based off the Arthurian legend. I find Cast to be a little quirky at times that can take away from the story.
nightfalltwen's review against another edition
1.0
Okay that is 309 pages of my life that I will never get back. This woman writes like a 17 year old girl.
I regret reading this book.
Okay... So here's something a little more in depth.
The writing was choppy at best. And everyone seemed to cotton on to Isabel's way of speaking like it wasn't ridiculous. None of the characters had any meat to them outside of Mordred. Isabel was the epitome of a Mary Sue. She was perfect in every way, everyone enjoyed her company, everyone loved her.
And okay, I'll accept silly things as dialogue... but when you put colloquialisms into narration, there is something wrong.
P.C. Cast... you fail as an author. Utterly fail.
Case in point: The Nail Polish event.
Sorry... water, flowers and corn starch? To make nail polish? Corn starch wasn't even invented until the 19th century. CORN DIDN'T EXIST IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND! WTF. W. T. F. Not to mention about a zillion other things that were just wrong. And I don't care that this is supposed to be "fantasy" or "fiction"... King Arthur is a key figure in British mythos and the time period is a real time period. At least take the time to actually research the time period before you make an absolute mockery of it.
As someone who enjoys British history, this book disgusted me. As someone who actually enjoys writing this book disgusted me.
And don't get me started on the utterly contrived and stupid ending.
Nine thumbs. Way DOWN.
I regret reading this book.
Okay... So here's something a little more in depth.
The writing was choppy at best. And everyone seemed to cotton on to Isabel's way of speaking like it wasn't ridiculous. None of the characters had any meat to them outside of Mordred. Isabel was the epitome of a Mary Sue. She was perfect in every way, everyone enjoyed her company, everyone loved her.
And okay, I'll accept silly things as dialogue... but when you put colloquialisms into narration, there is something wrong.
P.C. Cast... you fail as an author. Utterly fail.
Case in point: The Nail Polish event.
Sorry... water, flowers and corn starch? To make nail polish? Corn starch wasn't even invented until the 19th century. CORN DIDN'T EXIST IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND! WTF. W. T. F. Not to mention about a zillion other things that were just wrong. And I don't care that this is supposed to be "fantasy" or "fiction"... King Arthur is a key figure in British mythos and the time period is a real time period. At least take the time to actually research the time period before you make an absolute mockery of it.
As someone who enjoys British history, this book disgusted me. As someone who actually enjoys writing this book disgusted me.
And don't get me started on the utterly contrived and stupid ending.
Nine thumbs. Way DOWN.
librarydanielle's review against another edition
1.0
I hate king Arthur stories.
I was blindly reading this series and would have skipped it if I had realized it was Arthurian, but I didn't, so there you go. also, what's with randomly stepping out of the Roman Gods thing? it worked, why mess with it? especially with an overdone theme? I won't bother going into detail on why I disliked this so much, everyone has already said it before me.
I was blindly reading this series and would have skipped it if I had realized it was Arthurian, but I didn't, so there you go. also, what's with randomly stepping out of the Roman Gods thing? it worked, why mess with it? especially with an overdone theme? I won't bother going into detail on why I disliked this so much, everyone has already said it before me.
bethanharcourt's review against another edition
2.0
The miscommunication about half way through was so unnecessary, and trivial, just to move the the plot along, it was just poor writing.
miramanga's review
1.0
Wow. This book was terrible. I feel upset that I used up one of my library loans for it. It actually offended me in how badly it had been written.
jaymeshaw's review against another edition
4.0
Super good! Although there could have been a little more sex.... or at least a little more detail! :)
schin's review
3.0
I think this book has received the most contraversial reviews yet among others in the series. While some absolute adores this version of Arthur, others find it down-right appalling. For me, I find it funny.
Yes, yes, I know. What a response, eh? Truth to be told, I usually pick up a new P.C. Cast book when I want a happy ending. An alternative to Disney, you see. I supposed it is because of that that I find this book tolerable, quite decent, and may I daresay, enjoyable. I mean, no matter what you say about how Ms. Cast has changed Arthur, you have to admit that this book has more original jokes. I mean, pickles? *belly laugh*
So, down to business: Arthur. Personally speaking, I do find this version a little less... majestic, I supposed. I have watched Merlin the TV series and even though that Arthur is younger than this Arthur, he has more of that larger-than-life feeling. If you ask me I would believe which Arthur has pulled out the Excalibur, I would definitely say the Arthur in the TV series.
That being said, I think it is a little out-of-hand in this case. Every one has their own cup of tea is it not? So I supposed we shouldn't judge Ms.Cast so harshly with her version of Arthur. After all, I did see many readers who like it.
But as for the things that can be controlled... Well, the best example will have to be the battle. What battle you say? Bingo! There isn't one. Anyone thinks of [b:Breaking Dawn|1162543|Breaking Dawn (Twilight, #4)|Stephenie Meyer|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1361039438s/1162543.jpg|2960529]? Wigs and poison mushroom? I know that Ms. Cast is trying to show the power of women and everything but this is just overdoing it. I rolled my eyes so hard on that one my eyeballs could've gotten stuck that way.
A good try, though, I think. My advice is think of the ridiculousness as funny and you would enjoy the whole book.
Yes, yes, I know. What a response, eh? Truth to be told, I usually pick up a new P.C. Cast book when I want a happy ending. An alternative to Disney, you see. I supposed it is because of that that I find this book tolerable, quite decent, and may I daresay, enjoyable. I mean, no matter what you say about how Ms. Cast has changed Arthur, you have to admit that this book has more original jokes. I mean, pickles? *belly laugh*
So, down to business: Arthur. Personally speaking, I do find this version a little less... majestic, I supposed. I have watched Merlin the TV series and even though that Arthur is younger than this Arthur, he has more of that larger-than-life feeling. If you ask me I would believe which Arthur has pulled out the Excalibur, I would definitely say the Arthur in the TV series.
That being said, I think it is a little out-of-hand in this case. Every one has their own cup of tea is it not? So I supposed we shouldn't judge Ms.Cast so harshly with her version of Arthur. After all, I did see many readers who like it.
But as for the things that can be controlled... Well, the best example will have to be the battle. What battle you say? Bingo! There isn't one. Anyone thinks of [b:Breaking Dawn|1162543|Breaking Dawn (Twilight, #4)|Stephenie Meyer|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1361039438s/1162543.jpg|2960529]? Wigs and poison mushroom? I know that Ms. Cast is trying to show the power of women and everything but this is just overdoing it. I rolled my eyes so hard on that one my eyeballs could've gotten stuck that way.
A good try, though, I think. My advice is think of the ridiculousness as funny and you would enjoy the whole book.
norma_cenva's review against another edition
2.0
Started out well. But ended up being a clumsy disappointing mess!