Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.09 AVERAGE
3.09 AVERAGE
Laugh out loud bad.
I'm not an Egyptian scholar by any means so I can't comment on the accuracy of much in here, but reading the numerous reviews calling him out for bad data does grind my gears, because the cover claims this is nonfiction, as does Patterson's author's note.
BUT I do read a lot so I feel perfectly justified in shredding this on its overwhelming lack of quality.
Page 73 Howard Carter is describing Queen Hatshepsut: "Carter knew that Hatshepsut had once been deeply in love, for she was a queen before she was a pharaoh." Uh . . . bruh. Are you trying to tell me that in a time where women were property, you really believe she loved her husband with no evidence? You're a moron.
Page 106, Nefertiti (for no reason other than Patterson's complete disinterest in women's agency) is acting sad about her husband's death, and then proceeds to wax poetic about his "marvelous and eccentric brain" that the mummifiers were going to remove. Even I know that the Egyptians believed that the brain was worthless and that's why they removed it. Bad writing and clear lack of research.
Page 111 our good buddy James Patterson (who is so exceedingly vain that he is one of the three storylines) is walking along Donald Trump's golf course and says it's his favorite golf course in the world. Yeesh. Did not age well.
And lastly,
Not worth the paper it was printed on.
I'm not an Egyptian scholar by any means so I can't comment on the accuracy of much in here, but reading the numerous reviews calling him out for bad data does grind my gears, because the cover claims this is nonfiction, as does Patterson's author's note.
BUT I do read a lot so I feel perfectly justified in shredding this on its overwhelming lack of quality.
Page 73 Howard Carter is describing Queen Hatshepsut: "Carter knew that Hatshepsut had once been deeply in love, for she was a queen before she was a pharaoh." Uh . . . bruh. Are you trying to tell me that in a time where women were property, you really believe she loved her husband with no evidence? You're a moron.
Page 106, Nefertiti (for no reason other than Patterson's complete disinterest in women's agency) is acting sad about her husband's death, and then proceeds to wax poetic about his "marvelous and eccentric brain" that the mummifiers were going to remove. Even I know that the Egyptians believed that the brain was worthless and that's why they removed it. Bad writing and clear lack of research.
Page 111 our good buddy James Patterson (who is so exceedingly vain that he is one of the three storylines) is walking along Donald Trump's golf course and says it's his favorite golf course in the world. Yeesh. Did not age well.
And lastly,
Spoiler
Patterson declares that he alone was smart enough to figure out that Tut was murdered by a ne'er-do-well hired by Aye, but his loving wife and General were equally to blame. Um . . . what? This completely disregards all scientific evidence, which would be absolutely fine if he didn't claim this was nonfiction.Not worth the paper it was printed on.
Meh. I'm currently interested in King Tut and was looking for more information in him. Patterson says he did a lot of research for this book, which he presents as non-fiction, but I felt more like he just consulted Wikipedia. No footnotes, no citations, no references, so as far as I am concerned, this is historical fiction.
Also super light on the actual details, particularly how he came to conclude that Tut was murdered, when the archaeology community seems to agree that the issue with the mummy's skull was a postmortem artifact.
Disappointed.
Also super light on the actual details, particularly how he came to conclude that Tut was murdered, when the archaeology community seems to agree that the issue with the mummy's skull was a postmortem artifact.
Disappointed.
Too much James Patterson, not enough substance regarding the life of Tut or Howard Carter.
James Patterson did not disappoint. I lived how he through his own thoughts and reasearch in this book. Plus the ancient Egypt time period and the 1900s to 1930s when Howard Carter discovered Tut's tomb. It was all written very well and leaves you wondering if it's all true. Which we'll never know if Tut was really murdered but maybe.
dark
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
This book is engrossing and fun, but it is absolutely not a nonfiction book. There is literally so much speculation. James Patterson is successful and knows what will sell, but he is not a historian by even the most marginal criteria
Really Fantastic book. Learnt loads and the style was good.
It just seemed fake, like the research wasn’t really there. And there were no sources at the end. The dialogue all seemed off, and the present day parts were not needed at all. I’m sure I am biased having a studied archaeology and worked in the field.
To claim this as nonfiction is an absurdity. You’re writing dialogue from the 1300s BC? Yeah, I don’t think so.
However, if you change your mindset and read it as a fictional telling of the story, it’s not too bad.
Also, authors, don’t write yourself first person into your books. It’s kind of disgusting.
However, if you change your mindset and read it as a fictional telling of the story, it’s not too bad.
Also, authors, don’t write yourself first person into your books. It’s kind of disgusting.
This book is not deserving of all its 1-star reviews here on Goodreads. This is not to say that it is great literature, but I kept my expectations low and was pleasantly surprised. It made me want to read an actual non-fiction book about the discovery of Tut's tomb to see how accurate Patterson was in telling that story.