You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I really enjoyed this book's story and I liked the way Cornwell writes, specially his battle scenes!
I usually find it difficult to follow battle sequences in books and therefore I find them boring. But in this book, I was hooked from start to finish. How Cornwell describes and writes his battles is extremely entertaining and understandable for the reader.
I also loved how he interwove very slight hints of magic with the Briton religion. Also, the battle for religious supremacy between Christianity and the Briton religion was interesting to see it evolve throughout the book.
Why do I give this book a 3.75 then? Well because other than what I mentioned above the book is pretty lacking in anything else. The most egregious is the World Building. No effort was done on that front, Cornwell just spouted out village and city names and that's it. There is no differentiation between Briton or Saxon or Irish Kingdoms. Every kingdom is just the same with different religions.
Then there is characterisation, where, in my opinion, lies the biggest fault of this book. These characters are one-dimensional except 2. Arthur and Derfel have some different qualities other than there most prominent but other male characters are pretty much all the same - soldiers or cowards.
Women are all pretty much the same as well. There apparenly are only three types of women in Dark Ages Briton: Druids, Whores (the MOST prominent type of women, as it seems like every women in this book is a whore), and mothers, who most of them hate their children. Only very few women were shown to actually love their children.
I usually find it difficult to follow battle sequences in books and therefore I find them boring. But in this book, I was hooked from start to finish. How Cornwell describes and writes his battles is extremely entertaining and understandable for the reader.
I also loved how he interwove very slight hints of magic with the Briton religion. Also, the battle for religious supremacy between Christianity and the Briton religion was interesting to see it evolve throughout the book.
Why do I give this book a 3.75 then? Well because other than what I mentioned above the book is pretty lacking in anything else. The most egregious is the World Building. No effort was done on that front, Cornwell just spouted out village and city names and that's it. There is no differentiation between Briton or Saxon or Irish Kingdoms. Every kingdom is just the same with different religions.
Then there is characterisation, where, in my opinion, lies the biggest fault of this book. These characters are one-dimensional except 2. Arthur and Derfel have some different qualities other than there most prominent but other male characters are pretty much all the same - soldiers or cowards.
Women are all pretty much the same as well. There apparenly are only three types of women in Dark Ages Briton: Druids, Whores (the MOST prominent type of women, as it seems like every women in this book is a whore), and mothers, who most of them hate their children. Only very few women were shown to actually love their children.
slow-paced
adventurous
dark
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The Winter King (The Warlord Chronicles 1)
I was recommended this book as “an introduction to the historical fiction genre for people who like fantasy” by reviewers I trust on YouTube. ‘The Winter King’ is a retelling of the Arthurian legend from a more historically accurate lens (ie, no *traditional* magic = no sword in the stone), set in a very grim Dark Ages 6th century Britain.
Admittedly, I’m not extremely familiar with the traditional Arthurian legend. I know the names Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, etc. but beyond that, I don’t know much. Unfortunately, I think that hindered my ability to thoroughly appreciate what Cornwell did in this story.
I have two major complaints:
1) ‘The Winter King’ is written in the first person past tense from the perspective of Derfel, who apparently is one of the classic knights of the round table (although no such round table exists in this tale). I liked Derfel fine, but there was surprisingly little of Arthur in this book, and that was disappointing. I think I would’ve appreciated Cornwell’s decision to paint Derfel as the narrator more had I come in with some background knowledge on the Arthurian legend.
2) Cornwell committed so hard to historical accuracy that I literally couldnt pronounce some of the character names (eg, Gorfyydyd, Culhwch, etc.) nor most of the locations they visited throughout the tale. This was extremely detrimental to my enjoyment. It was just too much effort for me as the reader.
There are definite redeeming qualities, however. Cornwell’s battle sequences are second to none. The book could have used more of them, imo. I put up with the first ~100 pages of slow-burn plot development to experience Arthur’s first hand-to-hand combat and it was EPIC. I thought I was in for much more of that for the rest of the book, but it was more so centered on more plot development and world building. I’ll chalk that up to the fact that this was book 1 in a trilogy and hope for more of Cornwell’s battle sequences in book 2. The action alone will get me to continue on to ‘Enemy of God’, but it needs to exceed ‘The Winter King’ in almost all facets to get me through to ‘Excalibur’.
Overall: Good, not great. 6.75/10
I was recommended this book as “an introduction to the historical fiction genre for people who like fantasy” by reviewers I trust on YouTube. ‘The Winter King’ is a retelling of the Arthurian legend from a more historically accurate lens (ie, no *traditional* magic = no sword in the stone), set in a very grim Dark Ages 6th century Britain.
Admittedly, I’m not extremely familiar with the traditional Arthurian legend. I know the names Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, etc. but beyond that, I don’t know much. Unfortunately, I think that hindered my ability to thoroughly appreciate what Cornwell did in this story.
I have two major complaints:
1) ‘The Winter King’ is written in the first person past tense from the perspective of Derfel, who apparently is one of the classic knights of the round table (although no such round table exists in this tale). I liked Derfel fine, but there was surprisingly little of Arthur in this book, and that was disappointing. I think I would’ve appreciated Cornwell’s decision to paint Derfel as the narrator more had I come in with some background knowledge on the Arthurian legend.
2) Cornwell committed so hard to historical accuracy that I literally couldnt pronounce some of the character names (eg, Gorfyydyd, Culhwch, etc.) nor most of the locations they visited throughout the tale. This was extremely detrimental to my enjoyment. It was just too much effort for me as the reader.
There are definite redeeming qualities, however. Cornwell’s battle sequences are second to none. The book could have used more of them, imo. I put up with the first ~100 pages of slow-burn plot development to experience Arthur’s first hand-to-hand combat and it was EPIC. I thought I was in for much more of that for the rest of the book, but it was more so centered on more plot development and world building. I’ll chalk that up to the fact that this was book 1 in a trilogy and hope for more of Cornwell’s battle sequences in book 2. The action alone will get me to continue on to ‘Enemy of God’, but it needs to exceed ‘The Winter King’ in almost all facets to get me through to ‘Excalibur’.
Overall: Good, not great. 6.75/10
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Bernard Cornwell is one of my favorite guilty pleasures--I enjoy his historical novels as probably my favorite light reading. Some of his works are more imaginative and gripping than others. The Arthur Trilogy is, IMO, his best work, closely followed by Stonehenge.
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
I was so excited to read this book because I've been hearing for so long about Cornwell and how well he writes his battles and the stories...
Oh dear. I got bored to tears. I am not giving up on the series, since it is a must read due to so many references I see by the authors I like to read. But how hard this journey is. Arthur is hard to describe. It's not that he is unappealing to me because he is too idealistic - I can respect that. I just think he lacks charisma in the book. I cannot get along with him. And the main character is an unknown that also lacks charisma or depth to keep me interested in following his journey.
The women's struggles are interesting and I'd love to know more about them. Too bad that Cornwell writes them as uni-dimensional characters.
I will continue in this series journey... but it's a hard one.
Oh dear. I got bored to tears. I am not giving up on the series, since it is a must read due to so many references I see by the authors I like to read. But how hard this journey is. Arthur is hard to describe. It's not that he is unappealing to me because he is too idealistic - I can respect that. I just think he lacks charisma in the book. I cannot get along with him. And the main character is an unknown that also lacks charisma or depth to keep me interested in following his journey.
The women's struggles are interesting and I'd love to know more about them. Too bad that Cornwell writes them as uni-dimensional characters.
I will continue in this series journey... but it's a hard one.
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A typical Cornwell novel: good read, but somehow predictable