Scan barcode
A review by ireadthebooks
The Last Disciple by Hank Hanegraaff, Sigmund Brouwer
3.0
The authors did a decent job of depicting Rome in the early years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but it wasn't as thorough as Francine Rivers' Mark of the Lion trilogy. The terminology and customs aren't as all-encompassing, which helps you focus more on the story but doesn't give you a sense of immersion in the culture. What The Last Disciple did very well was depict the tension between traditional Jews and Christians in that time period, and the Roman Emperors and "the growing problem of Jesus' followers." They did a remarkable job with the characterization and horror of Nero, the Roman Emperor who used Christians as human torches in the Arena. His calm insanity was even more frightening than a raving lunatic, because there was no question in his mind about his own actions. At one point, he's stalking through the gardens in a lion costume being led on a chain by his second-in-command, all to scare some prisoners so that they think he's a real lion, not a crazy man in a lion costume. It was absurd enough to remind the reader that this dude is cracked, seriously seriously cracked.
A couple of things that bugged me about The Last Disciple:
The authors switched POVs every 2-3 pages, often a couple of times per chapter. This meant there were a lot of characters, not all of them essential, and you didn't really get a sense of continuity within the story because you shifted from one plot to another constantly. It really broke up the narrative quite badly.
The other thing is the title. The apostle John doesn't show up or play a part in the novel until the very end. The novel wasn't really about him at all. It was still good, but I dislike when titles don't make sense. That's more a personal pet peeve of mine though and probably wouldn't deter most people.
A couple of things that bugged me about The Last Disciple:
The authors switched POVs every 2-3 pages, often a couple of times per chapter. This meant there were a lot of characters, not all of them essential, and you didn't really get a sense of continuity within the story because you shifted from one plot to another constantly. It really broke up the narrative quite badly.
The other thing is the title. The apostle John doesn't show up or play a part in the novel until the very end. The novel wasn't really about him at all. It was still good, but I dislike when titles don't make sense. That's more a personal pet peeve of mine though and probably wouldn't deter most people.