|
Loading... The Murder of King Tutby James Patterson
LibraryThing recommendationsMember recommendationsLoading...
won't like
will probably not like
will probably like
will like
will love Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. I found this book to be very disappointing. A short book, it interjects the author's discussions with his editor, as well as the struggles of the discoverers of Tut's tomb, into a story of Tut's life and death. Tut's story is interesting, Carter and Lord Carnaervon's story (the tomb's discoverers) are somewhat interesting but Patterson's "struggles" to get this book printed smack of narcissism. I would go elsewhere to learn about King Tut. (  ) maunder | Jan 25, 2010 |  patterson solves waht scientist cannot find out? really? and then he makes up a story about it and calls it n0on-fiction. PAtterson, pls stay with fiction. that is where you belong. (  ) kakadoo202 | Jan 24, 2010 | This book replaces The Da Vinci Code in my mind as the worst book ever. Patterson asserts that King Tut was murdered and talks about a wound on the back of the mummy's head. Yet, in his imagined murder scenario, the boy king is strangled. huh? The author inserts himself into the book, with chapters about writing the book and how Tut's story fascinated him; I find this device to be extremely annoying and of no value to the story. The book is already quite disjointed when the chapters alternate between Patterson's fictionalized account of King Tut and the nonfiction account of Howard Carter's work in Egypt. (  ) swanroad | Jan 20, 2010 | The Murder of King Tut is not a book; it is a cash grab, plain and simple. It is a scheme to remove $33 dollars from the pockets of fans, and reward them with the barest minimum necessary for it to qualify as an actual book. The entire 340 page book can be read in under three hours, written at the level of a particularly bright Grade 4 child. That this piece of hackwork was released at all is utterly contemptible, a middle finger to Patterson's many fans. His hubris is astounding, his arrogance depressing. It is that which transforms King Tut from merely being a waste of time into something worthy of all the bile and vitriol one can spew at it. Read the rest of the review here. ( ) ShelfMonkey | Jan 16, 2010 | crap ( )1  moggyandme | Jan 7, 2010 | 
 Patterson doesn’t buy that Tut died of a infection. And that’s all fine and good, but he does nothing other to follow his gut to come up with abruptly fingering likely murder suspects. There is no true evidence; just supposition. Dare you question him? Writes Patterson, “There was that gut instinct of mine again — the reason, I think, that TIME magazine had once called me ‘The Man Who Can’t Miss.’” That level of arrogance is astounding, especially when Patterson lays out his theory and writes, “Case closed.” Um, no. For one thing, other authors have beat him to this conclusion and with far more credibility — see Michael R. King and Gregory M. Cooper’s WHO KILLED KING TUT? and Bob Brier’s THE MURDER OF TUTANKHAMUN, from 2006 and 1999, respectively — so his hunch that Tut was the victim of homicide is nothing new, nor those he accuses of it. He’s just found a way to turn it into a surefire hit to pay for that golf membership.
References to this work on external resources.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Book description |
|
No descriptions found.
The first test round has been closed. Visit the Open Shelves Classification group for details.
Quick Links |
Wikipedia in English
